Week 7 - WWI and the British Empire

8/11/2019 Week 7 - WWI and the British Empire

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/week-7-wwi-and-the-british-empire 1/14

Samantha Lau Page 1 26/09/2014

Week 8 Seminar – WWI and the British Empire

Essay Question: How successful were the British in exploiting their empire as a strategic asset from 1914

to 1918?

Contextualise – problems created/ highlighted in empires during WWI that challenged British leadership

and disabled her from fully utilising the resources of her empires.

Was Britain really exploiting the empire? Exploitation is too strong a word!Britain used the empire as a crutch? – exploiting it to prob themselves us/ mutual dependence

Incapable of exploiting the empire? Or they

Evaluation of success:

Response to local challenges faced in the colonies (India)

Ability to bring in and coordinate imperial forces in the fold of British war planning and machinery

Distinction about Dominions and India? Is this a story about Britain and Empire

Long-term vs short-term: utilisation of resources

Strange relationship – wanted their support, but didn't want to give them a dominant role in war

planning (strategic policy). Just wanted them as human shields maybe.

British raj – tethering on the edge of government – all the various

o

1917 Montagu Declaration – early begins of decolonisation

Questions

1. What was the dominant question the British Empire faced at the beginning of the 20th Century?

How Britain could manage her empire at war (she was ‘fit for’ the ‘peaceful empire of the old type’)

o Could the vast but disaggregated resources of the empire be brought to bear on the single,

compelling objective of victory?

Britain was reluctant to fully involve Dominions in the war effort – wanted to avoid being embroiled

in hast improvisations, and was determined to maintain tight control over the military machinery

(addition of Dominion forces might disrupt cohesion).

Moreover, there was the imperial belief that it was the duty and right of the Mother country to bear

the burden of war; the rest of the empire should accept a supplementary role.

o Up to 1916, GB’s demands on her Empire were limited (under Asquith).

o However, when GB moved towards compulsion in Britain with the Military Service Act 1916,

new benchmarks were set for Empire contributions.

o But the crucial watershed came with Asquith’s replacement by DLG, who savoured the

emergency of war.

2. What were the two schools of thought on the British Empire's overall strategy and resource

management during and after the First World War?

Imperial troops coming together and working with Britain as a clockwork (integrated forces part of a

wider military scheme)

Imperial troops working as autonomous units across different theatres of war

o

Dominions insisted on their Expeditionary Forces retaining a separate identity on the front.

The fact that Dominion leaders had little say in wartime operational matters made

Dominion policymakers all the more determined to protect the confined realm over which

they presided. Result was a differentiation of ‘British’ identities.

o Dominion forces did some to possess a large degree of autonomous leadership (evolved a

certain resilient autonomy of their own is this a reflection of loosening British control

over her subjects?)

Canada: Canadians went furthest in this regard, being the only Dominion to exercise

organisational oversight (through the appointment of a Canadian Cabinet Minister).




Currie (Canadian) took over the post of Canadian Corps Commander and asserted a

strong sense of Canadian autonomy.

Australia: Monash and other Australians took over Divisional Commands in 1918.

Monash emerged in the final months of war as one of the finest commanders on the

Allied side. Interesting that he had been a civilian before the war.

3.

How successful was Britain in gaining dominion support for her war effort? (what were the

responses of the 'major' dominions) Colonial belligerency took place against a background of enthusiastic manifestations of Imperial

solidarity could exploit wartime enthusiasm in certain colonies.

o Marked in colonies in which pan-British sentiments remained entrenched (Australia,

Canada, India)

o Throughout the Empire, including Britain, there was undoubtedly in Aug 1914 an acute

apprehension of being on trial. Outbreak of war fed a need to defend positions held within

the complex hierarchies of the Empire.

o

Anxieties on the part of Dominion and colonial cadres to resist any demotion within the

system of power and protection to which they belonged. In Canada’s case, which has so

recently be rocked by a scare of annexation to the US, the sudden advent of war presented

a challenge to preserve her status as a senior Dominion within the British empire.o Suggests a link between status and war contribution

Expeditionary Forces were the most obvious expressions of the Empire’s war effort

Are Dominions satisfied by what they receive through their experience in war?

South Africa could not really exploit resources here because of existing unstable situation

o Notable example illustrating that the link between status and contribution in Dominions was

inevitably shaped by local context.

o

One would think that a Dominion making a greater wartime contribution would gain more

rewards/ status.

o

However, the situation in SA demanded her distancing from the war in order to maintain thealready tenuous imperial connection. Precedence was given to maintaining the SA PM in

power, and not pressing him into actions likely to jeopardise the Imperial connection, so as

to preserve the gains made by Britain in the African scramble in 1899-1902.

o SA’s only contribution was a voluntary military force.

o

More than any other Dominion, SA’s involvement in the war could be measured in cash –

British government had to make up the difference between Union and British pay rates so

send a portion of the SA troops to the Western front.

o Ambiguity of SA position went further – exploits of SA brigade went largely unheralded (as

compared to other Dominions where their sacrifices were glorified)

o SA participation in the Empire crusade was qualified, subdued and covert.

o

SA local war effort also hinged largely on one personality (Smut)o

The more pressing the demands of Imperial war became, the more tangled were internal

configurations (development of Hertzogite nationalism that adopted a secessionist and

republican ideology that opposed the Imperial and Commonwealth connection)

Australia

o

When GB moved towards compulsion in Britain with the Military Service Act 1916, new

benchmarks were set for Empire contributions. Australia held the first of 2 wartime

referendums on compulsory military service overseas.

o Despite the heroic sacrifice at Gallipoli, there were doubts over Aussie’s thoroughness of her

commitment to the struggle.

o

Trade matters also sometimes chafed Anglo-Australian relations.o ‘There is an especially ugly spirit in Australia’.




o Australian public refused conscription Australian Imperial Force (AIF) divisions on the

western front were eventually starved of drafts and had to be nursed by the High

Command.

o Counter: But the problem of recruitment had little to do with an ugly spirit – it was more to

do with diminishing returns after the early flood of volunteers had exhausted itself.

o

Nevertheless, Australia’s refusal for conscription provided ammunition for those (British)

disposed to complain. Dissatisfaction naturally worked both ways – prejudiced images of

British ‘shirkers’ translated to Aussie apprehensions that the Mother country was failing hermaternal responsibilities.

o Prolonged war habitually corrodes allies, even Imperial allies, just as it intensifies the

bitterness of enemies.

o

Counter: Australians did not want to be forced to enlist, but they did want to continue the

war to the very end. Even without conscription, Aussie’s voluntary conscription rate was

higher than Canada’s conscripted rate (because Canada granted many exemptions).

Moreover, their debt structure was such that Britain simply had to go on extending loans

and buying commodities if the country was not to grind to a halt.

NZ

o When GB moved towards compulsion in Britain with the Military Service Act 1916, new

benchmarks were set for Empire contributions. NZ was the first Dominion to adoptconscription in 1916

Canada

o Canadian Expeditionary Force was the first to be despatched in early Oct 1914.

o Apart from men, Canada also provided Britain with essential war supplies (flour, shells)

became the only Dominion who made an industrial contribution to the war effort.

o

When GB moved towards compulsion in Britain with the Military Service Act 1916, new

benchmarks were set for Empire contributions. Canada implemented a new national

registration scheme (not conscription proper).

After Dec 1916

o

English Canada met the challenge calling for greater Dominion contribution enthusiastically.o

After 1918, however, ideas of a new Canadian autonomy, even nationhood, consecrated by

the shedding of blood overseas, led to Canadians firing at Canadiens (French-Candians) at

home. The war therefore divided and alienated, just as it united and recruited, within the

British Empire.

o Emergence of a series of hard, competing regional class and ethnic interests – present

before the war but in muted form.

o

The war years, after the initial optimism about the country’s unity of purpose had worn thin,

exacerbated old tensions between French and English, old and new Canada, classes and

between city and country.

o This logic of escalating tensions was replicated elsewhere in the British Empire.

o

Despite this, the adoption of conscription helped the Canadian Expeditionary Force maintainits divisions up to full strength.

India

o Viceroy Hardinge and his colleagues believed that India had carried more than her fair share

of the Empire’s military burdens.

o Contributed manpower, money (a ‘sweetener’ of some £100 million ahead of the 1917

Imperial War Conference).

o

When there was the threat of disintegration, Britain’s twin poles of Indian policy were

reform and repression.

Defence of India Act 1915 – martial law that ensured repressive powers post-war

* Britain did not seem to actively be recruiting her empire into the fold of war

Crucial watershed in GB’s war policy came with DLG’s replacement of Asquith – escalation ofImperial war effort




o Before Dec 1916 Britain was at war, assisted by her Empire; with DLG, the Empire was at

war, orchestrated by Britain much more as a primus inter pas (first among equals).

DLG drained off whatever the Empire had to give for the purposes he had in hand – asset-stripping

Local divisions, tensions and divides – bit more uniformed society in white society. Look at how local

politics played out in the strategy of empire.

Bringing up the point of race/ culture is important to distinguish between British/ Empire

4. According to Holland, why was India a vital military asset but also a potential threat to the future

Empire?

India stood out as Britain’s major military asset in the overseas Empire.

However, there were a string of setbacks which were often the cue for scapegoating.

o

Indian Army proved unable to administer what it was not designed to administer – a war

overseas on a grand scale (performance was lacking).

After 1916, India functioned as the ‘barrack in the Eastern seas’ – massive recruitment was its true

worth in the grander war scheme as its huge reserve allowed other troops to be diverted to France

from such theatres as East Africa, Egypt and Palestine.

Indian policy grounded on the belief that the greater her military contribution, the more tangiblethe rewards – which would come in the ultimate prize of political and constitutional advance to self-

government (or at least some declaration of intent to rally moderate opinion).

However, in the course of this and the impacts of war, ideas have found vent, aspirations have

been formulated which could not be controlled, threatening GB’s grip over the empire.

5.

What were the attitudes of British high command to involving the Dominions in military and

diplomatic policy?

Britain was reluctant to fully involve Dominions in the war effort – wanted to avoid being embroiled

in hast improvisations, and was determined to maintain tight control over the military machinery

(addition of Dominion forces might disrupt cohesion).

Moreover, there was the imperial belief that it was the duty and right of the Mother country to bear

the burden of war; the rest of the empire should accept a supplementary role.

o

Up to 1916, GB’s demands on her Empire were limited (under Asquith).

o However, when GB moved towards compulsion in Britain with the Military Service Act 1916,

new benchmarks were set for Empire contributions.

o But the crucial watershed came with Asquith’s replacement by DLG, who savoured the

emergency of war.

Dominions’ political and military leaders had minimal say in operational matters

Dominions’ role in the higher management of war:

o War stimulated strongly regressive attitudes in British Government; were reluctant to

allocate control to her empire Borden felt like a ‘toy automata’

o DLG tried to deflect these feelings by holding a series of special meeting of the War Cabinet

in which Dominion Premiers were invited to attend. It was greeted as a new Imperial

Executive, BUT this body did not really formulate any real war policy, and spent much of

its time discussing post-war problems. Only given apparent rather than real power.

o

Dominions came to be associated with the higher command of war and helped sustain its

legitimacy, but they never managed to penetrate its innermost machinery.

o Status as ‘junior but sovereign allies’ remained qualified by custom and pace of events.

War did not spawn new Dominion nations; qualified autonomy of Dominion Expeditionary forces

was not allied with any grand political agenda.




6. According to Brown what was the overall effect that the First World War had on Empires.

WWI saw a significant weakening of imperial bonds that tied Asia and Africa to Europe due to the

underlining of economic hardships, spread of ideals of self-determination, changes in colonial

relationships (between imperial rulers and their subjects).

Weakening and strengthening of bonds

Widened the Empire

Shift in policy towards the Suez – built a military base

Challenges to British Empire in India

Dearth in European presence in India weakened this social buttress of Empire

o

Counter: It is inaccurate to see the difficulties in civilian staffing as the primary factor in the

1917 Declaration, or even as a direct result of war.

o Weakness of the ‘steel frame’ only came about in 1920s.

o As much as manpower shortage could be explained by the impacts of war + events in India,

strong currents in British society is another reason – the availability of other careers, relative

decline of ICS pay and allowances in a period of inflation, apprehension of the effects of

constitutional reform on service careers in India.

Local distress disturbed mass acquiescence that was essential in maintaining the Empire (note the

distinction between 1) strains not necessarily attributable to the war, but aggravated by war and 2)

strains directly attributable to war)

o

Difficulties of tenants in landlord areas (1)

o

Troubles of peasants growing unprofitable indigo crops (1)

o Methods of recruiting and collecting contributions to war loans (2) – produced a sour force

of resentment

o Counter: Discontent and anti-government potential generated by local events were never

coordinated and the worst of local eruptions (in Punjab and United Provinces) did not occur

till after the 1917 Declaration

o Price rises (1)

Counter: most rapid AFTER the Montagu Declaration. Appointment of government

controllers of prices had little effect and only served to underline the failure of the

raj to help the distressed

o

Religion (1)

Indian Muslims faced a distasteful clash of loyalties when the war involved Britain

fighting against Turkey (Turkish Sultan bore the title of Khalifah – religiously

significant). British raj was worried this might inspire a jihad.

Problem was particularly coming from younger Muslims who were publicising Pan-

Islamism, international unity and solidarity for all Muslims (which the Turkish Sultan

had fostered for several decades).

There was emotional commitment to the Sultan as a symbol of worldwide Islamic

unity, strengthened by events that made Indian Muslims feel like the British weresleeping if not active partners in an international attack on Islam.

The leaders (Ali brothers) were interned, but the threat remained and there were

politicians who exploited the cry of religion in danger. Eventually this took the shape

of the Khalifat movement – violent but patchy, full force hitting India after the war

when peace terms were being negotiated.

o

Conclusion: War did not shatter the mass acquiescence in India that made the raj viable.

War’s main effects were only felt by the ordinary people after the Declaration was

considered and made.

7.

What was the main reason for the British Raj not being thrown out of India?




Good timing in policy shift – calculated that impacts of war threatened to undermine the

foundations of British empire in India, and so acted before this could happen via the Montagu

Declaration to stabilise the situation and shore up the buttresses of their empire.

Indians weren’t able to form an organised, united front to challenge the British raj

8.

Who were the two main groups of people that the British Raj though were important to keep good

relations with and why did they move focus from the first to the second group?

Britain needed allies whom they could trust to keep India loyal and man the machinery of public life.

British need for them grew more urgent with war.

o

Qn: Did the war undermine this collaboration network on which the British Empire in India

rested upon?

Divide and Rule:

- Religion

-

Race

-

Class: Britain integrated herself in a particular existing class/ caste structure.

They start to create new categories

-

Political leaning?

Britain is educating and encouraging colonial people to more national identity. Comes out in the

structure of the Indian Army – you can’t officers

British idea: certain types of people cannot develop the responsibility

British Raj’s Allies

Princes

o

Responded to Viceregal appeal for help with offers of personal service, troops, money etc.

o

Counter: It was not until after the war that the British felt these aristocrats were more like

liabilities rather than staunch allies in a changing India where decisions were made with

increasing reference to public opinion.

o

Princes were conservatives who wanted to maintain status quo (their privileged status withthe raj). They were not receptive to the change in policy of the raj for progressive reforms

Raj’s Indian employees, soldiers

o Essential for smooth running of regime

o Indian Army played a significant role in many theatres of war, and in India itself their loyalty

was all the more important as British troops were removed.

o

Counter: During the war, Raj’s civilian employees had to live with soaring prices; hence

there was the possibility of a mass strike for revised pay scales to grant some relief.

o Raj’s servants only felt this pinch after the Declaration, when there was significant

modification in the colonial relationship

Business groups (towns) and landlords (rural areas)

o

Kept trade and industry going and supplied essential war storeso Trade boom did not last long; India was hit by a post-war recession and currency crisis.

o

Businessmen were increasingly becoming more sensitive to the actions of the government ∵

of government economic intervention turned to modern-style politics as a channel for

protest and demand as government action increasingly impinged on their occupations.

o

Despite signs of unrest, the businessmen did not fail the raj in the development of India’s

trade and industry.

o However, businessmen were ultimately unable to manipulate patronage and influence

networks to help keep the urban populace (towns) peaceful (another aspect which the raj

looked at businessmen as social buttresses)

o

Local landlords were similarly unable to act as an effective, reliable base for social control to

the regime in light of social change in the rural areas. Their leadership was further




challenged (precipitated by the British) within rural society by the rise of the Western

educated.

Western educated / representatives of Western education (‘Moderate’ politicians)***

o

Only a recent development created by the British with the introduction of Western style

education

o British needed them to man the new professions which were part of the infrastructure of

empire + secure them as nodules of loyalty in a society where British knowledge and power

were limited (also, they were cheaper labour)o

Western educated could act as moulders of public opinion

o

Representatives of Western educated men: men who developed a political style which drew

heavily for its inspiration on western experience

o British hoped to co-opt into the raj the moderate politicians willing to cooperate in

measured, planned and orderly advance towards increasing Indian participation in the

higher realms of administration and greater influence in the country’s decision-making

processes.

o

By rallying the Moderates, the British were secure, and (extremist) politicians who would

have pressed them for further concessions found themselves in an impasse – violence was

unprofitable to which the raj merely replied in kind, and peaceful demands were brushed

aside because the British were in no need of them when they were in secure collaborationof the Moderates.

o

Sets up British role as the third party, disinterested party that will guide the people towards

self-realisation.

o

BUT, WWI broke this impasse local challenges to British administration

War denuded India of European troops, making British more sensitive to the

aspirations of its essential allies within India

War gave Moderates the impetus to exploit the situation to increase pressure for

Indian self-governance. Allied ideas and propaganda gave them formidable

ammunition with which to bombard their British rulers (threw back at the British

the aims of the war and applied it to Indian aspirations for self-government).

Such was their solidarity behind a demand that would once have been dubbed asExtremist, for the war united all shades of political opinion towards the Indian goal

of self-governance.

Pre-war disunity that characterised local politicians began to change in 1916-17;

politicians organised two Home Rule Leagues to mobilise a large span of political

opinion behind their demands.

British were worried about Moderate defection – there was growing conviction

that political change (post-war limited concessions) was necessary for the raj to

retain the alliance of a reasonable section of the western education.

Pressure was felt and British raj policy evolved from post-war concessions to

immediate declaration of intent (for India’s future self -rule)

Were nationalist groups trying to call for independence? Not yet. Elite Muslim population is one of Britain’s key allies – often at the expense of

emerging political class.

Divide and rule becomes a particularly special tactic

Martial race theory – men from different parts of India who can fight vs. western educated men

British trying to stop India from thinking herself as a nation

WWI changes the framework? – enforces an ideological reassessment of the imperial relationship.

o In the course of this and the impacts of war, ideas have found vent, aspirations have been

formulated which could not be controlled, threatening GB’s grip over the empire.




o Colonial relationship remains in place, but it is just evolving – degree of imperial control –

formal OR informal rule? Even with natives taking place in the government, there wasn't a

breakdown.

9.

Montagu's 1917 Declaration was significant for what reason, according to Brown?

Helped stabilise the raj in 1917, but it paved the way for an independent subcontinent.

o

Montagu Declaration was a response to the challenges of war on the stability of the BritishIndian empire, but in adapting to these changes, the raj inadvertently started the process of

an erosion of imperial bonds tying India to Britain.

Ultimately was a gamble for wartime allies which marked the change in the colonial relationship and

heralded even greater changes to come.

United the different factions of Indian politics that would prove a threat to the British raj

Would sow the seeds for later discontent and unhappiness because of the limited nature of

political concessions. Indian politicians were not satisfied – case of frustrated expectations.

10. What evidence is there of the men-on-the-spot theory when looking at the Colonial-Imperial

Relationship in the British Empire? Did the actions of independent men in the colonies influence the

relationship between imperial rulers and subjects? Decisions made by Indian Viceroys

o Montagu Declaration 1917 as a manifestation of independent actions taken by men in the

overseas colonies

SA local war effort also hinged largely on one personality (Smut)

11. What were the problems faced in the management of Imperial troops?

India: Replacement of British officers, replacement of Indian soldiers, restoring morale and

rebuilding Indian Army units into efficient Army elements

o Poor morale: Many incidences of self-inflicted wounds within Indian Army Corps so that

they could be called out of duty

o

Indian Army over-supplied with elderly officers

Key points

(Brown)

Declaration was a direct result of war. Announcement recommending the goals of self-governance

was couched in terms of ‘the recognition of India’s services during the War’.

Foundations of British power in India varied with geography and time; at any one place at a

particular time, colonial relationship was unique because it was dependent on and responsive to

the local conditions and changes in these conditions.

o Punjab: British buttressed their position by a stern tradition of paternalism and alliance with

local landholders.

o Bengal: British adapted to the uneasy world of the western educated and the job-hungry,

who were fast learning to deal in the currency of modern politics.

o

Bombay: Established a harmonious relationship with the powerful mercantile communities

who dominated the city and insured its prosperity.

Despite the differences in application demanded by local conditions, there were certain constant

features in the social buttresses of the raj.

Throughout the subcontinent there was a small European presence which was the core of British

administration and coercive power – formed the ‘steel frame’ without which the British felt the

fabric of empire would collapse.

o

It was a paltry force, but British public opinion would not have allowed anything more

expensive.




o Viceroy admitted that British would be driven out of India if faced with disturbances on the

frontier, disloyalty and mutiny in the Indian Army and civilian outbreaks.

The raj’s whole military policy and organisation had always been based on the principle that it must

in the last resort look to GB for the assistance necessary to preserve the integrity of Empire

(dependence on GB)

Since European coercive presence in India was so weak, civil disorder was dangerous for the raj.

Mass acquiescence was a necessary social buttress – the raj was only as strong as it was thought to

be, British stood jealous guard over its prestige, always considering in any policy choice the

effects it would have on the raj’s reputation, whether or not it would be interpreted by the Indians

as a sigh of weakness.

Problems arising from/ underlined by WWI in India

o Price rises (particularly significant in an agrarian economy)

o Communal conflicts in a society deeply divided by religion

o Landlord-tenant relations

British solution to these local challenges: finding reliable allies whom they considered to be

acknowledged leaders in society, to act as nodules of loyalty in return for the favours of the raj (co-

opting these Indian influential men into scheme of the British raj). Empire was impossible without

Indian collaboration.

Foundations of imperial power in India:

o Small European presence

o Mass acquiescence

o Key collaborators

Qn: Did war work changes in Indian society which eroded these foundations and made the 1917

Montagu Declaration necessary for the raj to continue? Evidence that incidences of discontent

First few months of war saw India being stripped of British troops – European element was suddenly

and drastically reduced, and replaced by Territorials who were untrained and virtually unarmed.

o Created a situation in which interested parties could exploit, due to the reduction in size of

the civil service (ICS – Indian Civil Service) and army

(Holland)

Practical necessity was allied to a determination to gain colonial acquisitions while a war of

uncertain duration afforded the opportunity.

Forces had already swung into flexible and highly dispersed action beyond Europe.

Colonial belligerency took place against a background of enthusiastic manifestations of Imperial

solidarity.

o

Marked in colonies in which pan-British sentiments remained entrenched (Australia,

Canada, India)

o Throughout the Empire, including Britain, there was undoubtedly in Aug 1914 an acute

apprehension of being on trial. Outbreak of war fed a need to defend positions held within

the complex hierarchies of the Empire.

Africa

o British and French argued over the division of West African spoils

o Britain eventually decided to give France the lion’s share of the Cameroons in order to

vitiate any claims she might have in East Africa as the greater Nile Valley began to loom in

British strategy.

o

In West Africa, there were many localised disturbances (against mass conscription), but the

war was overall the occasion of such troubles, not their cause.

o War had marked the beginning of the revolt against the white man’s supremacy in Africa.

Crucial watershed in GB’s war policy came with DLG’s replacement of Asquith

o

Before Dec 1916 Britain was at war, assisted by her Empire; with DLG, the Empire was at

war, orchestrated by Britain much more as a primus inter pas (first among equals).




Dominions were the exception to the rule of ‘the cream of civilian talent not being allowed to rise to

the top of British armies between 1914 and 1918’.

Imperial diversity was also reflected in those colonial units absorbed into British structures

shades of informal empire showed themselves here

Dominions’ role in the higher management of war:

o War stimulated strongly regressive attitudes in British Government; were reluctant to

allocate control to her empire Borden felt like a ‘toy automata’

o

DLG tried to deflect these feelings by holding a series of special meeting of the War Cabinet

in which Dominion Premiers were invited to attend. It was greeted as a new Imperial

Executive, BUT this body did not really formulate any real war policy, and spent much of its

time discussing post-war problems. Only given apparent rather than real power.

o Dominions came to be associated with the higher command of war and helped sustain its

legitimacy, but they never managed to penetrate its innermost machinery.

o Status as ‘junior but sovereign allies’ remained qualified by custom and pace of events.

War did not spawn new Dominion nations; qualified autonomy of Dominion Expeditionary forces

was not allied with any grand political agenda.

o What were they fighting for then? Charles Bean suggests it was a sense of mateship. Rings

true in the suggestion that front line experiences went deeper than the surface layers of

regiment, nation or Empire.o

For Dominion societies, the effects of war on their self-images and perceptions were not

clear-cut. It did not create a Canadian/ Australian identity that could be separate from the

matrix of the British Empire.

o Hancock: Dominions emerged with ‘heightened self -consciousness’ – enjoyed the best of

both worlds; the benefits of Imperial partnership and yet increasingly able to assert a

measure of independence whenever it suited their interests.

War gave birth to a fresh British Empire in the Middle East (triggered by war with Turkey). Suez

‘fixation’ came into being and would vitally affect GB imperial consciousness in the years ahead.

Egypt

After the capture of Jerusalem, DLG’s vision was to ensure Britain should be there to conquer and

remain.

Remaining in the Arab world however required pliable and impressionable partners.

DLG then bought off the French with Lebanese and Syrian spheres of influence and a residual role as

protector of Latin Churches, and aligned Britain with Zionism and the Hashemite dynasty.

Supremacy of British armies throughout the world of Islam

Egypt:

o Gradually arose an expansionist impulse whose political exhilaration derived from an

awareness of easy prizes to be won if the Turkish Empire was knocked over.

o

There was a review of Turkish spoils, finding expression in the Sykes-Picot Agreement in

early 1916, hypothetically carving up the Levant on Anglo-French lines.

o As Turkish presence wobbled in the face of a British-inspired Arab rebellion, an idea

circulated that what was lost in Alsace, Poland, or Serbia could be recouped to British

benefit in the Middle East.

o DLG was crucial – attempted to switch the balance of British aggression from Germans to

the Turks (with much disagreement from the Army High Command).

Parallel events in France were more sombre (unlike the pomp and triumph in the Middle East).

German offensive in 1918 brought about a crisis in Allied relations and threatened a crisis in imperial

affairs.




DLG resorted to a personal appeal to India to be the ‘bulwark of Asia’. India emerged from the crisis

of 1918 as what she had been in the crisis of 1914 – the only preponderant military asset the British

possessed outside of GB.

Thoughts also began to turn to the exploitation of the Africans based on the French model.

Conclusions

War united and divided; fuelled British solidarity and defined emergent nationalities; driven by

continental commitment and reinforced a bias beyond Europe; encouraged the liberality of reform

but accentuated the temptation of repression.

Lecture

Khudadad Khad – first Indian to win the Victoria Cross. Significant in the role of race, identity in the

position of Empire

WWI involve troops from all British Dominions

Changes the dynamics of the imperial relationship – Dominions find way to exert imperial identity

and emerging national identity

British mobilisation of resources

o

Empire was expected to help Mother country, but this was tempered by the imperial beliefthat the mother country should bear the burden of war

o But by 1916, when there are massive losses in the Western Front, there is a change in

attitude (rise of DLG) that leads to a sudden huge recruitment of men from Empire

Dominions

o There is a wave of enthusiasm to support Britain in the war

o Based on a sense of shared identity and heritage – processes of migration and immigration

heavily shaped the way this commitment moves to support Britain in war

o

Australia: “British first, Australia second.”

o

However, this begins to change with the emerging nationalist sentiments

o

Heavy recruitment campaigns rallying the Empire to be involved in the fold of war; but not

just about rallying about the GB flag, there is a specific emphasis on national group andwhat their unique qualities can offer (e.g. Australia)

Dependent Empire

o

Africa: Carrier Corps – giving logistical support, but commitment is seldom recognised.

Expectation that these tribal groups could be forced into service. There was no real idea of

enlistment, but they could be compelled to serve.

o Africa: Nigera forces

o

India: Most significant; crucial reservoir. Indian Army consisted of British officers and Indian

troops, which would create tensions later on.

Impire as an Economic Asset

o Significant economic contributions/ donations from Canada, India (‘sweetener), Africa (tax

basket)o

Vital trade links to support British economy. Allows Britain to offset reliance on Amerca

(Victory bonds in Cananda). Britain is able to support her borrowing from the US.

o How did this economic relationship benefit Dominions? There is self-interest as well. British

capital and investment funded modernisation in these colonies. There is a sense to protect

this.

o

Industrial contribution: Contributions in terms of materials

o

Think about: Britain still shouldered the burden. But relationship between Britain and

colonies become tense as Britain demands more and the colonies react to that.

Asia and Pacific Campaign

o

Relied on Japanese allies + contributions from India, ANZAC

o

Significant: Seizure of German base in Tsingtaoo Takes on a cat-and-mouse pursuit – GB Navy chasing the German navy




o By end 1914, German presence in the easy was largely removed

Africa

o

See similar colonial warfare taking place

o

4 major campaigns: (1) Togoland; (2) German South West Africa – SA army was taking on the

bulk of the fighting, was complicated by internal rebellion; (3) Cameroons; (4) German East

Africa – more complicated and lengthy campaign. Mostly White settlers; involved British

troops chasing German troops.

o

Germany did not have the naval forces to have the same flexibility as the British inmobilising/ moving resources

o

This isn’t the same mechanised warfare we see in Western Europe

Western Front

o

There is a huge presence of troops from empire acorss the Western front

Canada: Vimy Ridge

Aussie and NZ: Sommes, Gallipoli

India: Often fulfilling the roles of messengers, significant in Ypres and Passchendale

o Mobilisation of Indian troops – shaped by race/ national identity or strategic consideration?

Middle East (against Ottoman Empire) soft underbelly of Germans

o

Gallipoli and Dardenelles

o

Increasingly ME becomes the fulcrum of geopolitical strategyo Siege of Kut 1916 was a watershed (humiliating surrender of British and Indian troops),

forcing Britain to think about how Dominions are included, equipped in the war. Indian army

was used as scapegoat

o

Adter Mesopotamian campaign, Britain felt the need to reassess war strategy when Russia

collapsed and Germany began moving in threatened security of India

Middle Eastern Strategic Concerns

o

Reassessment of the way ME is understood – heartland of wider imperial geopolitical

strategy

o Britain was fighting WWI not just because of Europe, but because they wanted greater

security of their empire

o

Victorian belief: Keep ME as a neutral groud as buffer; but increasingly, GB sees the need tooccupy ME for security reasons

o

These ideas of

o

1904; Heartland Theory – a change in the way imperial power operates. Power is now

rooted in large land empires. The very centre of global power rests in the Asian continent.

To be able to secure India and Middle East, GB can contain the Russian threat. GB needs to

focus on securing these wider geopolitical objectives rather than just the western front

Resistance to mobilisation

o Empire provides resources and reasons to fight, but this wasn't a straightforward story of

compliance

o

With increasing war weariness, there were more challenged to the imperial connection

between GB and Dominions. There were not willing to be patronised in the same waybefore 1914.

o Canada:

Enthusiasm to war was very much shaped by community and geography.

There is a distinct split in Canada between French-Canada and the Anglophone,

English Canada.

French-Canada was reluctant to become involved in imperial war effort. Did not buy

into the war rhetoric.

War strengthened bonds linking Canada to Britain, but simultaneously deepened

exiting rifts in Canadian society. Demanded Canadians to start thinking of their

nation as separate from the imperial project

o

Australia and NZ Enthusiasm at first is hugely tempered by the losses at Gallipoli






o Within GB, there is a greater critique of Britain’s need for empire. Increasing criticism from

the left wrt to exploitation/ treatment of Dominions

o Questioning of empire on its ideological foundations that wasn't in place before.

o It IS Britain who bears the brunt of the costs of war

o Idea of imperial unity breaks down

Emergence of new national identities

o Rooted and shaped by experiences of war

o

Vimy and Gallipoli becomes important stories that shape the construction of nationalidentities; remembered as seminal events in the birth of new, mature nations

DO NOT THINK OF WWI AS THE START OF DECOLONISATION – but it unleashes processes that leads

to the empire’s eventual unravelling, where control doesn't come from metropole anymore.

Conclusions

o War fought to secure empire as much as it was for European security and balance fof

empire

o

Despite showing the bonds of empire, WWI also exposed tensions

o

Emergence of Dominion nationalism

Were Britain’s expectations of her Empire in 1914 realised by 1918?

o

Evolution of expectations from 1916 – policy shiftso

Look at it from a case-by-case basis – regarding the Empire as a whole is too simplistic.

Relationship is contingent on local circumstances. When doing this essay, RECOGNISE THESE

DISTINCTIONS OF EMPIRE + LOCAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Were Empires expectations of Britain in 1914 realised by 1918?

o

For Canada and Australia + NZ – link between status and contribution – sort of realised.

Prestige, greater autonomy – best of both worlds – they can enjoy the benefits of imperial

relationship AND assert a degree of national identity when the occasion called for it

o India: Ambiguous?

o SA: White South Africans wanted the

o

Are these expectations/ ambitions of Britain and Empire conflicting or mutually sustaining?

And how does that change. Mutually sustaining till 1916?

Colonial relationship isn’t just about Britain imposing rule – it is a mutually beneficial relationship

between imperial rulers and subjects.

1914 – genuine swell of support for the imperial connection. What the war does is to create a space

in the relationship – all the colonies start to realise that there is more potential for self-rule?

Documents

Week 7 - WWI and the British Empire