Sunteți pe pagina 1din 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, GBs 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 Asquiths 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).
Samantha Lau Page 2 26/09/2014
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 Canadas 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 Empires 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 the
already 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 SAs only contribution was a voluntary military force.
o More than any other Dominion, SAs 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 Aussies 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.
Samantha Lau Page 3 26/09/2014
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, Australias 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 her
maternal 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, Aussies voluntary conscription rate was
higher than Canadas 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 adopt
conscription 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 countrys 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 maintain
its divisions up to full strength.
India
o Viceroy Hardinge and his colleagues believed that India had carried more than her fair share
of the Empires 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, Britains 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 GBs war policy came with DLGs replacement of Asquith escalation of
Imperial war effort
Samantha Lau Page 4 26/09/2014
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 Britains 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 tangible
the 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 GBs 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, GBs 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 Asquiths 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.



Samantha Lau Page 5 26/09/2014
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 were
sleeping 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.
Wars 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?
Samantha Lau Page 6 26/09/2014
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 werent 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 cant officers
British idea: certain types of people cannot develop the responsibility

British Rajs 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 with
the raj). They were not receptive to the change in policy of the raj for progressive reforms
Rajs 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, Rajs 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 Rajs 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 stores
o 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 Indias
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
Samantha Lau Page 7 26/09/2014
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 countrys 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 collaboration
of 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 as
Extremist, 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 Indias future self-rule)
Were nationalist groups trying to call for independence? Not yet.
Elite Muslim population is one of Britains 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 GBs grip over the empire.
Samantha Lau Page 8 26/09/2014
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 British
Indian 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 Indias 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.
Samantha Lau Page 9 26/09/2014
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 rajs 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 rajs 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 lions 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 mans supremacy in Africa.
Crucial watershed in GBs war policy came with DLGs 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).

Samantha Lau Page 10 26/09/2014
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, DLGs 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.
Samantha Lau Page 11 26/09/2014
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 belief
that 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 and
what 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 Tsingtao
o Takes on a cat-and-mouse pursuit GB Navy chasing the German navy
Samantha Lau Page 12 26/09/2014
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 in
mobilising/ moving resources
o This isnt 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 strategy
o 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 to
occupy 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 way
before 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
Samantha Lau Page 13 26/09/2014
Enlistment rates dropped; refused conscription
However, that is not to say that Australia stopped contributing in the war effort.
Nascent sense of national identity they refused recruitment by compulsion, but
wanted to join in the effort by CHOICE.
Think of position of women in propaganda: this isnt just a masculine war
o South Africa most complex and controversial
Still suffering from divisions of Boer War
Latent hostility towards GB from Boers
Needed to maintain the balance of commitment to GB war and not alienating the
Boers
National unity was the priority over commitment to the larger war
White SA was afraid that white sacrifices in war will dilute the white community
(and they will come under black community attack racism)
o India
Realisation that if India rises against GB in war time, it wouldn't be able to
controlled
There was also the fear of Muslims
This doesn't happen because the war creates a growth in economy (allows
business groups to be more sympathetic and patient to war)
But creates conditions in which political identity is fostered.
GB wanted to rally moderate political opinion by offering limited concessions
However, these concessions sets the motion for
Rule in India had hitherto been maintained via a divide and rule stategy (GB
presence needed to be a mediating force). Now this was being challenged with the
unity of rival groups demanding for political concessions
o Political reform in India
Statement needs to be made about Indias position
Nationalists saw the Montagu Declaration as a promised greater involvement of
Indians in politics
Diarchy Britain tried to give Indian more control over local issues, but GB to retain
power in the centre. This sparks huge controversy; Indians feel this is an insult to
her contributions in war
o Africa
There was little political opposition to GBs violent means of forcing labour
More aggressive call for white mans settlement in Africa
Sowed the seeds for later nationalist movements and imperial challenges
o Ireland
Growing catholic nationalist challenge in Ireland
Real sense in 1916 that Ireland is about to explode (Easter Rising)
Irish nationalists felt like they were victims of imperial subjugation
Balance sheet: Empire as an Asset or Liability?
o TWE did Empire sway the course of the war?
o Contribution of imperial troops was KEY across a whole range of theatres
o Dominion: Natural organic relationship with imperial mother country
o Milner agenda: More recognition to Dominions to build a closer imperial relationship.
During the war, the emergence of Imperial War Cabinet and Imperal War Conference. This
doesn't happen, but the IDEAL does exist
On the flip side, there were opposition voices
o Some British politicians felt the Empire wasn't doing enough
o Argument pushed that the Western Front was the main crux of the war. By dispersing
resources, Empire made the war last longer
o Clear dominance of troops in the western front
Samantha Lau Page 14 26/09/2014
o Within GB, there is a greater critique of Britains 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 national
identities; 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 empires 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 Britains expectations of her Empire in 1914 realised by 1918?
o Evolution of expectations from 1916 policy shifts
o 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 isnt 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?

S-ar putea să vă placă și