Past paper questions

Wars, and particularly the world wars, were extremely significant in shaping British attitudes towards the maintanence of its empire. Whilst they were significant throughout, initially they motivated expansion, whilst after WWII they increased attitudes supporting decolonisation 

1899 400,000 imperial troops to achieve treaty of Vereeniging,Second Boer war in 1902 (might have been reviewed badly by British press but it drove a desire for African expansion), Opium wars fought in China, WWI and return to a period of consolidation (‘second colonial era’), Egypt made a protectorate, mandates like Palestine

However after WWII, threat of war within colonies motivated decolonisation e.g. threat of violence in Kenya (Mau Mau) and Nigeria led to their independence (1963 and 1960 respectively), civil war in Burma meant Britain left, help that colonies provided in WWII also meant people increasingly supported/believed in possibility of independence

Although the influence that they had on attitudes changed (went from motivating expansion to motivating decolonisation), their significance remained consistent and shaped the way that Britain viewed and maintained its own empire

BUT

in some cases Britain were willing to pursue unsuccessful wars to maintain territory

attempts to annex Afghanistan from 1880-1907 consistently, did not appear to shape attitudes or stop attempts (strategic importance was more important)

invaded Abyssinia in 1867 but then left: wars for a non-expansionist purpose

demonstrate that other factors were more important, but wars did significantly shape attitudes

Britain’s concern for maintaining international relationships and protecting its pre-existing colonies meant that strategy had a significant effect on British attitudes. Furthermore, wars became a tool by which strategic aims could be exercised.

annexing territories like Afghanistan to protect India from Russia (1878), Somaliland annexed to provide a route from Uganda to the Indian Ocean (1884), strategic expansion after Berlin Conference 1884, racing to take over African colonies and assert international dominance but also not colonising places it didn’t need to (e.g. Congo, free trade had been established so no need)

After WWII and with a new international power-balance, strategic was as important in shaping attitudes but now motivated decolonisation

US was a new power pushing for decolonisation e.g. in Egypt, Greece in 1947

Also a strategic defence against communism e.g. SEATO 1954, Burma and Malay

BUT

Would sometimes willingly sacrifice international relations if there were other benefits to be gained

Suez crisis and going behind US (1956), decolonisation was not immediate despite pressure from US

Whilst strategy and international relations clearly informed British attitudes towards its empire (particularly influencing the way it chose to pursue empire), strategic factors were also considered in tandem with other factors in a cost-benefit analysis of empire.

Arguably economic factors were the most significant in shaping British attitudes towards empire. Whilst initially a desire for economic gain motivated imperial expansion, after the world wars the increasing cost of the empire meant Britain increasingly began to pursue decolonisation. British attitudes were ultimately shaped by a cost-benefit analysis of the empire.

Early: Egypt 30% of cotton and British £4m shares in Suez meant Britain were willing to supress riots like Alexandria riots 1882 install puppet king, 1871 annexation of Griqualand West after diamonds found, use of chartered companies like North Borneo Association 1881, East African Company, George Goldie, financing Lunatic Line 

Late: 1922 Egyptian independence but retained 10,000 troops in Suez in Anglo-Egyptian treaty 1936, Statue of Westminster 1931 to retain economic benefits without administering direct control, 1960s became more focused on Europe economically but in 1956 58% of overseas investment was still going to the empire 

Highlights that shift in policy from direct control to greater independence was a cause of shift in economic policy where they initially saw economic expansion in controlling governance and suppressing colonies but later worked to preserve economic ties whilst no longer administering direct control as cheaper, cost-effective means of empire 

BUT

sometimes economic benefits were sacrificed if they would have more significant strategic repurcussions e.g. George Goldie’s UAC charter rejected to avoid tensions with France

Furthermore, the real economic benefits of the empire were always limited (20% of imports, 33% exports only rose to 25% and 37%), only became economically profitable after 1914

Arguably it was the perceptions of economic gain that shaped British attitudes towards empire the most, which motivated their desire to deal with strategic issues and fight costly wars. Even though the empire was never actually as profitable as Britain thought it was, it was the perceived economic benefits that shaped attitudes the most.

[ALTERNATIVE COUNTER]

This policy shift can be directly contributed to the impact of wars WW2 indebted Britian £2bn to US and spent 4bn overall where their economic attitudes shifted as could no longer afford to retain empire due to costs of war 

Therefore it was arguably wars that played the most important role in shaping British attitudes towards empire, and wars influenced all other factors

Another factor that shaped British attitudes towards its empire was also the level of resistance within the colonies. Rise of nationalism responsible for change in attitudes causing a shift from  domination in the early period to collaboration with government in the later period 

Early: lack of nationalism meant Britai n worked to suppress political input of the colonies Zanzibar 1890 38-minute war after anti-British Khalid became king, India controlled by Viceroy and India civil service   

Late: Tanganyika 1961 independence through Juluis Nyere’s TANU, Quit India movement Subhas Chandra Bose and All Muslim league that set up Government of India act 1935 achieved independence in India in 1941 

Highlights that it was the growth in nationalism from the early period to later period that changed British attitudes to shift in dominating governance to allowing greater political input and ultimate independence to the colonies 

Nationalism only formed as a result of the wars making them the ultimate cause for the shift in policy such as Singapore 1947 which saw rise of new political parties of Labour Front and People’ action party only after 1947 the government allowed 6 seats on legislative council due to their capture by Japan in WW2 

Generally, administration remained the same from 1857 to 1965, visible in the consistent economic policies that Britain maintained. Financial gain was one of Britain’s primary motivations for expansion and maintenance of the empire, and so governance was centred around maximising economic benefits (or minimising economic loss), leading to consistent government and administration

Early: Egypt 30% of cotton and British shares in Suez caused British suppress Alexandria riots in 1882 install puppet king and political court, 1871 annexation of Griqualand west after diamonds found, willingness to fight Opium wars into the 1860s just to maintain influence in China

Late: WW2 indebted Britian £2bn to America so expanded empire to help recover financially 1951 collaborate with US and CIA to restore Shah of Iran a pro-British monarch in reaction to proposed nationalisation of oilfields (Project Ajax), new scheme of citizenship and state of emergency in Malaya to retain control due to importance rubber exports 

Although colonies were run in different ways to capitalise on their economic benefits (e.g. colonies vs spheres of influence vs chartered companies), the policies of the empire continuously centred around economic gain, leading to generally consistent governance and administration (at least economically).

BUT

Towards the end of empire (particularly after WWI), governance and administration began to focus on economically investing in certain colonies

£49M Tanganyika groundnut scheme (1947), colonial development Act 1929, Uganda cotton scheme £4 million (1920)  

However, these were mostly self-funded rather than stemming from British administration of colonies. Furthermore, they were still policies centred around economic advantage, attempting to stabilise colonies so as to not harm Britain — abandoned once they no longer provided Britain return on investment e.g. Tanganyika given independence 1961 

Unlike their economic policies, Britain’s political governance of its empire changed dramatically throughout the period, shifting from a policy of direct rule and imperial hierarchy towards increased trusteeship and self-rulership.

early: establishing effective occupation in African colonies in the 1890s, established a pro-British monarch in Zanzibar after a 38-minute war, chartered companies like EAC became protectorates, same happened in India (1858) and Borneo (1888)

late: Indian civil service 44% of new officers were Indian (1924), 1935 franchise expanded to 35 million, Nigeria had the Richards constitution and MacPherson constitution allowing African representation and formation of political parties (1946), use of class A, B and C mandates

Politically-speaking, British governance changed dramatically between 1857 and 1965 as colonial rule became increasingly collaborative and directed towards an eventual goal of self-governance, away from the direct rule of the early period.

BUT

The involvement of native populations in rulership was not entirely unique to the later period

1863-71 four Indians were accepted into Indian civil service  

Dominions gained self-governance much earlier, experienced a shift from colonial to representative to responsible

However, these examples are exceptions to the rule rather than general cases: the speed of dominion self-governance can be explained by the fact they were white-majority colonies, limited Indian governance was an attempt to prevent future issues after 1857 mutiny

As a result, generally governance and administration changed a lot in a political sense, from direct colonial rule to increasing trusteeship and eventual independence

Although the style of governance did change politically, more generally Britain aimed to carry out a ‘civilising mission’ within its colonies, leading to consistency in colonial administration. Even though the explicitness of this mission decreased over the period, social reform remained at the heart of governance and administration.

Uganda 1894 as protectorate after King executed protestant and Catholics, Baring used position as consul-general to abolish slave trade, forced labour, whip, close gambling houses, and endorse missionary activity 1883 

General Dyer Amristar massacre during Sikh festival of Vaishakhi 1919, 1947 scheme in Malaya restricting citizenship to ethnic Malays who spoke English, schools run by missionaries in Kenya and the Gold Coast 

Highlights how governance consistently worked throughout the period in aiming to control and change indigenous practices in ideas of civilising mission through racialised theories of superiority 

In some cases, native practices were allowed to continue e.g. ‘Lobola’ practices in South Africa (which went against Christian teachings), refused to help King Tewodros fight Muslim populations in Abyssinia to spread Christianity (1867)

Whilst these examples do highlight cases where British governance did not prioritise the civilising mission, they do not detract from the broader goals the Britain (and particularly missionaries) had of civilising its colonies — instead they highlight that some concessions were made to enable a more successful general civilising mission (in the case of South Africa), or to prioritise economic aims (as in Abyssinia).

Evidence for Berlin Conference: shift from economic to strategic, scramble for Africa (went from 80% uncolonized in 1884 to 90% European colonization), increase in cultural development with the idea of ‘effective occupation’, annexed Bechuanaland in 1885 to protect it from Germany.  

BUT 

Didn't entirely abandon economic reasons (such as free trade in the Congo)  

WWI caused a much bigger change: went from a range of issues to entirely economic, spent £35 million. WWII – strategic imperialism goes in the opposite direction, bigger geographic impact than the Berlin conference  

Evidence for Berlin Conference: whilst before they often used chartered companies e.g. United Africa Company (1879), the condition of ‘effective occupation’ established for all European colonies meant that colonial rule meant that nature of empire became far more direct e.g. Sierra Leone established as protectorate 1896 

Also becomes more violent e.g. Benin 1897 and 1900  

BUT  

Maintained cooperation with indigenous elites  

WWI – gained mandates e.g. Palestine, Tanganyika, Iraq. Gov of India 1919 act increased franchise, Leo Amery’s white paper advocating for trusteeship 1927, Lugard’s dual mandate  

WWII – greater shift from direct rule to self-governance/independence e.g. direct rule in defense of India act 1919 but then ultimate independence 1947, Burma civil war and then independence 1948 

Berlin Conference – before mostly led on men on the spot like George Goldie, David Livingstone, John Kirk. After the Berlin conference, with the ascension of the imperialist Salisbury in 1885, colonies came under much more direct rule as Salisbury was hugely invested in. Introduces imperial rivalries in Africa e.g. Fashoda 1898, making it about the government and European powers not men on the spot   

BUT  

Completion of the All-Red Line in 1911 – established communications across empire and removed the need for men on the spot 

Second Boer war – formal British militarization, powers through British governance

Went from very influential to not very influential over government policy, but were never as influential as Westminster

Early period: George Goldie (Royal Niger - United African Company), Cecil Rhodes forwarded the expansion in South Africa 1895 until 1898, owning 90% of the world’s diamond trade, John Kirk in Zanzibar

Men on the spot drove expansion in colonies, entering the areas before government administrators did and preparing them for colonial rule

Later: the establishment of the all red line in 1911 changed the way in which colonies were run, increasing the establishment of Westminster e.g. Colonial office split into two, with one department solely the dominions, men on the spot lost their importance in changing the administration of colonies

Men on the spot were no longer as significant once British rule had been consolidated and a direct British presence had been established, meaning that ‘on the ground’ representatives no longer played the role they historically had

BUT

There were some influences: Leo Amery published a white paper leading to the adoption of trusteeship in 1927, Richard Cohen promoted the decolonisation of areas like Sierra Leone and Gambia successfully

However, the success and influence of men on the spot was ultimately contingent on how much Westminster supported and endorsed their policies, and men on the spot played an advisory rule towards Westminster, especially in the later period.

Westminster had the most significant consistent impact, although this changed from being in the interests of expansion but later was through decolonisation and independence

Early: Disraeli made the conservatives party of empire, invested £4m in Suez canal, made Victoria the empress of India, Gladstone fought the Madhists, Fashoda crisis 1898 - although Gladstone had wanted to withdraw, Salisbury changed the policy when he became PM

Later: Attlee gave palestine to the UN in 1947, Macmillan 1960 Winds of Change Speech (Kenya 1963, Tangyika 1961, Jamaica 1961)

This shift can be explained by the cost of empire and the US, which changed the policies which Westmisnter promoted

BUT

1960 wind of change speech was only because of events in the empire e.g. Mau Mau rebellion but ultimately the change was still directed by government policy

more important in early than later, when government started to defend their established interests more violently

Early: Afghanistan 1880 responding to international rivalries, events in the colonies e.g. Indian Mutiny 1857, Ugandan civil war 1886, Ashanti wars 1831-1896 means part of their expansion in the gold coas

Later: Amritsar massacre 1919 Suez crisis 1956 - they’re doing things in colonies rather than being led to

BUT

ultimately these reasons were sporadic and inconsistent, and didn’t explain expansion across the empire and thus ultimately didn’t shape government policy

collaboration was consistent but it shifted from being with pre-existing native elites to new political structures the British had created

Early: collaborated with Zamindaris in India after Indian Mutiny 1857, Borneo Indigenous elites consulted, Tewfiq instated as a puppet ruler in Egypt, accepted appeals from Tswana Kings

Later: still collaborated but with the leaders of the political structures they had created e.g. Aung San in Burma, by 1924 44% of ICS was Indian, KANU collaboration in Kenya

BUT

even early collaboration was limited, in India the zamindaris only ever controlled 23% subjects, puppet leaders were under British direction

methods of control changed from violent to peaceful

Early: Nandi opposed construction of Ugandan line, were all killed, Amritsar Massacre 1919, concentration camps used ins second boer war

Later: tended to be less violent and often offered concessions in order to avoid violence, Malay independence granted as civil war began to break our, Palestine given to UN as it became too violent in 1947

BUT

even later violent methods of control were maintained e.g. Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya was suppressed through labour camps, between 11,000 and 130,000 estimated as killed by British

went from informal and haphazard control of empire to more formal

Early: through men on the spot and chartered companies e.g. North Borneo association, Royal Niger company, Cecil Rhodes directed 1895 Jameson raid

Later: much more formal control, began after Berlin conference 1884 but more formally through league of nation mandates 1919, class A, B and C mandates, had to be developed

BUT

even later there was some influence from men on the spot and discrepancies between official policies and on the ground control e.g. Palestine (international policy favoured Zionism, on the ground favoured Arabs), Richard Cohen directing independence of regions like Sierra Leone

Gov and administration remained overwhelmingly consistent as economic policies were a reflection of underlying British interests

Example

Administration of empire was domestically and economically focused as colonial administrators reversed their previous promises in order to prioritise economic gain from the colonies

This domestic aim is consistent throughout the period; later on

1948 independence of India — initially appeared like a change in governance for anti-colonial reasons but was underpinned by cost analysis, governance and administration was ultimately underpinned by economic and remained largely economic

Economic governance and administration remained the same through consistently implementing peripheral policies on domestic economic gains.

BUT

some governance and administration did seem to change in nature to benefitting the colonies rather than the metropole e.g. Colonial Developments acts, Attlee’s post-war investment

Appears to be a shift in how empire is governed, movement towards self-governance through economic development

BUT these were largely self-funded and intended so that the burden which came from continued administration could be alleviated

Therefore economic policies in colonial administration remained the same, domestically focusing on economic gain

Significant contrast with economic administration, politically underwent significant change from dominance of colonial authority in governance to increasing collaboration and reduced direct governance

1850s India Legislative Council only included ten Indians, methods of direct rule, evidence

1935 India act, 35 million were in the franchise, appointment of first Kenyan to legislative council in 1944, more collaboration and establishing trusteeship/self-rule

Change in governance was responding to rising demands from indigenous populations

BUT

could argue this change was consistent/not very significant as there had been some early collaboration, however this is largely unconvincing

Might have shifted significantly politically, but holistically governance and administration remained largely the same, as demonstrated bu the consistency in the social policy

Evidence