Britain’s Imperial Decline Before 1945

The British Empire did not suddenly start its decline in the post World War Two period; instead it was an event that began much earlier. The British Empire had been expanding and stretching out across the globe since the 1600s. After the American War of Independence Britain began to build a new empire with a new urgency. The British Empire grew to some thirteen million square miles and to govern over five hundred million subjects. This article focuses on Britain’s decline after World War 1 by looking at Egypt, Iraq, Ireland, and India.

Steve Prout explains.

King Faisal I of Iraq. He was King from 1921 to 1933.

The Decline of the British Empire

The contraction of the British Empire had already begun in the nineteenth century starting with Canada. Up until to 1921 Britain’s presence in the world was occupying a quarter of the planet’s land surface. Certain countries at distinct stages within that empire enjoyed a more independent status than others. Australia and New Zealand achieved their independence peacefully but others like Ireland would be forced to take a more violent approach in fighting Imperialist domination.

Independence was driven by motives such as the general desire of those nations to run their own affairs and the need to detach themselves from colonial repression and bloodshed (such as in Ireland and India). There was also the inequalities of trade in India, Iraq was piqued that they had found themselves rid of Ottoman only to have lost that freedom to British rule and subsequently lose control of their natural resources, and then just as important colonial rule often involved being dragged into the conflicts of far off European nations.

The Dominions

Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand independence came in the form of Dominion status which was achieved by a more diplomatic avenue. Dominion status was defined as ”autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”

Britain granted a Dominion Status in the 1907 Imperial Conference to a select number of nations. Australia and New Zealand were enjoying this privileged status since 1900 and 1901 respectively. South Africa would follow in 1910 after a series of unifications within its borders. Canada had already enjoyed this status since 1867. The Irish Free State would follow in 1922.

In 1926 the Imperial Conference revisited Dominion status with the Balfour Declaration which would be formalised and recognised in law with the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The British Empire now was now known as the Commonwealth of Nations. The Imperial hold had loosened but Britain initiated the change to allow complete sovereignty for the Dominions. The First World War left Britain with enormous debts, and reduced her ability and in turn her effectiveness to provide for the defence of its empire. The larger Dominions were reluctant to leave the protection of Britain as many Canadians felt that being part of the British Empire was the only thing that had prevented them from the control of the United States, while the Australians would later look to Britain for defence in the face of Japanese militarism. Except for the Irish Free State this change did not stop these dominions from supporting Britain in her declaration of war against Germany in 1939.

But between the interwar years there were further challenges to Britain’s Empire from various parts of the world. By the time the Great War was over India, Egypt, Ireland, and Iraq were all taking a less than passive approach in their demand for independence.

Egypt

Britain had partially governed Egypt since the 1880s under a veiled protectorate primarily to look after her interests and investments. It was never officially part of the British Empire in the same way for example as Rhodesia, Malaysia, India, or Cyprus. As soon as the Great War ended Egypt was demanding her own independence. By 1919 a series of protests had morphed into uprisings against British rule known as the 1919 Revolution. In that same year at the Paris Peace Conference, Egypt had sent representatives to seek independence from Britain. The sheer volume of international issues following the war distracted the allies and put Britain’s particular attentions elsewhere and Egypt left empty handed.

In 1920 an Egyptian mission led by Adli Pasha was invited by Britain to address the issues in Egypt. This mission arrived in the summer of that year and presented a set of proposals on independence for both Britain and Egypt to agree but after a return visit in June 1921 to ratify the agreement the mission left in “disgust”. No agreement could be reached on these proposals by Parliament or the Dominions at the Imperial Conference, notably over the control of the Suez Canal. More unrest in Egypt would follow resulting in martial law and by December 1921 the British realized that the situation was clearly unsustainable, and so they declared the Unilateral Independence of Egypt in February 1922. This independence would be in a limited form as the British still had control of the railways, police, courts, army, and the Suez Canal. By 1936 British rule had unwound further as King Farouk agreed an Anglo- Egyptian Treaty leaving just a garrison of troops to guard Britain’s commercial interests in the Suez Canal. This unwelcome presence was enough to involve Egyptian territory in the Second World War to the chagrin of the Egyptians.

Iraq

In 1932 Britain granted Iraq independence after a brief post war mandate that presided over the newly formed nation after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. From as early as 1920 Iraq had revolted against British occupation. Iraq now broke free of Ottoman rule only to find it had been substituted by their new British masters. The British military quickly quashed the revolts but like Ireland and other areas of the empire military repression was not the lasting solution, and the British continued in vain in Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra.

Part of the answer was giving the throne to a British friendly monarch King Fayṣal, with British control in the background. A plebiscite in August 1921 augmented his position. A treaty of Alliance replaced the formal mandate obligating Britain to provide advice on foreign and domestic affairs, such as military, judicial, and financial matters - but the matter was not yet over.

King Faisal would still depend on British support to maintain his rule. The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930 provided for a close alliance which essentially meant Iraq had limited control on matters of foreign policy and would have to provide for an ongoing British military presence on her territory. The conditions granted the British the use of air bases near Basra and at Habbaniyah and the right to move troops across the country for a twenty-five-year duration. Despite being a sovereign state by 1932 this treaty would find Iraq being involved in World War Two as the British fought against Nazi infiltration.

Ireland

Ireland, like India and Iraq, was another violent struggle for independence, and this was closer to home shores. The conflict would inflict wounds that both sides would not easily forget and forgive at least well into the twenty-first century.

The desire for home rule was long anticipated and had been on the negotiating table since the nineteen century premiership of William Gladstone. All efforts to push the Home Rule Bill of 1886 had been thwarted by the political opposition because it was feared an Independent Ireland would pose a security threat providing an opportunity for Britain’s foes. Also, for the diehard Imperialists this might prompt other demands for independence across the Empire.

The patience of the Irish nation would grow thin. A third Home Rule Bill was almost formalised in 1914 but the outbreak of war suspended its implementation. The ever long wait and the lack of clarity over the fate of Northern Ireland’s Six Counties caused an escalation in violence. The most notable event was the Easter Rising in 1916 but more violence and further escalations occurred in the post war years as the British tried to reassert control with military means. It was by then too late for such measures.

Ireland would make unsuccessful attempts to gain support at the 1919 Peace Conference in Paris and in particular President Wilson. In 1920 the Government of Ireland Act (fourth Home Rule Bill) was introduced by the British Government. It was far from satisfactory as far as Ireland was concerned as they wanted to completely break away from its relationship with Westminster and its unpopular allegiance to the Crown. It also divided off the Northern Ireland from the rest of the country which remained part of the United Kingdom.

In 1922 dominion status was granted but it was not enough for the independence movement. The newly Irish Free State wanted total severance from the crown and the removal of the oath of allegiance. Dominion status was not satisfactory in the immediate post war years, and the Irish made strenuous representations to the League of Nations that they had the capability to become a fully independent nation, which they would achieve by 1937.

A number of laws that were passed, including the Constitution (Amendment No. 27) Act 1936 and the Executive Powers (Consequential Provisions) Act 1937, removed the Imperial Role of Governor General. Then, using religious grounds following the outrage from King Edward’s abdication, Ireland finally severed all remaining ties with Britain to become a fully independent nation. The Irish experience and the way they achieved their independence constitutionally would be noticed and emulated by other colonies much later.

India

India was also challenging British rule in this interwar period. The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1917 that became the 1919 Government of India Act was an early attempt to establish a self-governing model for India. Indian nationalists felt that it fell short of expectations after their commitment to Britain in the First World War. The post war period had been hard on India, the flu epidemic and Imperialist free trade had affected society in all kinds of ways. The Rowlatt Act also fuelled the nationalist anger and allowed for the detention of any protesters and suppression of unrest. Protests encountered a typical coercive and violent reaction by Britain. This use of force was particularly heavy handed in Amritsar in April 1919 when Brigadier General Dyer had his troops open fire on a crowd killing almost four hundred local protestors. It was sufficiently bloodthirsty to cause even the bellicose Churchill to deem it “utterly monstrous,” but a subsequent enquiry failed to deliver justice to the perpetrators and exacerbated the situation. The British response was all in vain and in fact it fuelled Gandhi’s Non-Co-operation campaign. The issue would not go away but it would take another twenty-seven years to achieve independence.

Conclusion

The decline of the Britain’s Empire only accelerated in the post war period. The “Wind of Change” that Harold Macmillan spoke of on his visit to Africa in the 1950s was the just a continuation of the Empire’s sunset from many decades earlier. By the 1970s little of the Empire remained save for a few scattered islands around the world.

What do you think of the decline of Britain’s Empire after World War One? Let us know below.

Now read about Britain’s 1920s Communist Scare here.

References

Britain Alone – David Kynaston – Faber 2021

AJP Taylor – English History 1914-1945 – Oxford University Press 1975

The Decline and Fall of The British Empire – Piers Brendon – Vintage Digital 2010

Nicholas White – The British Experience Since 1945 – Routledge 2014

Losing Ireland, losing the Empire: Dominion status and the Irish Constitutions of 1922 and 1937 - Luke McDonagh

International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 17, Issue 4, October 2019, Pages 1192–1212

Britain and the 1920 Iraq Mandate: Signs of the British Empire’s Decline?

In 1920 Britain was granted an official Mandate by the League of Nations to administer the country of Iraq - and ultimately allow it to achieve independence.

The whole affair, which lasted from the end of the First World War to independence in 1932, was largely a failure, with few flattering accounts and obligations often unfulfilled. It is from this point in time that the first underlying signs of declining British power are evidenced, while for Iraq it set a path to a fraught and unstable future.

Steve Prout explains.

King Faisal I of Iraq.

The War and Occupation

The British presence had been building up in Iraq since 1914 when her forces had removed the Ottomans from the region with domestic support. As soon as the British had expelled the Turks they were making encouraging noises that raised Iraq’s hopes of independence.  

The British, in the words of General Maude and High Commissioner Percy Cox, implied loudly that they came as liberators.  This was welcomed by Iraq, which already had nationalistic aspirations and expectations were raised.

The Ottomans previously allowed levels of autonomy to many areas of Iraq and the noises from the British were encouraging, but what followed was very different and did little to assuage growing Iraqi concerns as the British occupation continued.

The Post War Mandate

The League of Nations appointed the mandate to Britain in 1920 to run Iraq and lead her on the path to self- determination.  In retrospect it resembled a poorly disguised colonialism. 

Iraq offered a geographically strategic position as a potential overland route from Egypt through the Middle East to South East Asia.  Iraq filled a gap of land in the middle of a long run of British possessions. It would provide a useful alternative to the long and arduous sea lanes that had been threatened by submarine warfare.

There was also an urgent need to offset the cost of the war that Britain bore in the region.  The overland route would be safer, quicker, and - more importantly - cheaper as there would be less demand on oil from the navy. Whether this theory was correct or not, the later revolt and the cost of suppressing it made the economic debate moot. By the end of 1920 Britain could see further lost opportunities as her plans to monopolize the oil reserves also met US resistance and generated a reversal of policy.

Nevertheless, another possession in the oil rich region at the time could enhance Britain’s international leverage, and counter French and Russian influence in the region (in May 1920 the Red Army invaded Northern Persia further fuelling Bolshevik expansionist fears).  

Now Britain had the mandate it was the India Office that provided the administration to mobilize it.  It imposed a very prevalent British presence in all aspects of Iraqi life – that would prove very unpopular. 

The Uprising

The uprising that occurred in Iraq in 1920 was fuelled by an unrelenting nationalism that was growing years before the British presence whilst under Ottoman rule.  The very loud and public promises made by the British during the war now looked like they were going to be unfulfilled. Arnold Wilson and other British high commissioners treated peaceful petitions and representatives in a high-handed and often dismissive manner, which no doubt irked these nationalists.  

The various tribes were treated inconsistently, controversial taxes were established, and a questionable plebiscite was orchestrated that favored a British outcome. Much of the country was resentful, as they felt excluded from political decisions.  The India Office imposed colonial rules on all aspects of life that felt more restrictive than that of the Ottomans.

The British responded to the uprising by deploying the full force of the military, with Royal Air Force (RAF) support.  Despite the belief that Churchill was an advocate of the use of poison gas, this was not deployed but the use of the air-force’s bombing tactics was no less brutal than that used by Italy in Abyssinia against poorly equipped tribes.  It was all over very quickly by the end of the year, but it was not an easily fought campaign for the British.

The British had far superior forces at their disposal with the presence of the RAF. This should have put them at a far greater advantage than the less well-equipped tribes.  The revolt was suppressed in a few short months after a brutal response that cost 10,000 Iraqi lives, the bombing of mosques and the burning of villages. There were also defeats and retreats that bloodied the nose of this huge Imperial force. Humiliating examples were the seizing of HMS Firefly and her artillery by the tribes who turned the arsenal on the British and the retreats from Karbala and Najal (to name but two).  It was a humiliating situation for a Great Power.

After counting the cost of the revolt and the continued strain on the finances, Britain began to urgently push for Iraqi independence. When the final tally was counted the uprising cost the exchequer circa £40m and the continued occupation of Iraq would cost circa £20m per annum.  Policy now had to change.  There was then an interim approach in Iraq in the meantime - and that was in the form of a democratic offering of sorts.

The Veneer of Democracy 

It was clear that military intervention would not be enough to keep a sustained peace.  The British needed a friendly Iraqi government that they could still influence and control in the background, whilst at the same time creating a veneer of a democratic government.  In 1921 that friendly pro-British ruler took the form of King Faisal, a man who was in favor with the British for his support during the war.  After his expulsion by the French for his attempt to establish power in Syria he took an offer by the British to head up a ruling government in Iraq. Faisal was not representative of the varied and diverse population - and it would not satisfy the underlying tensions completely.

Meanwhile, the British, with successive high commissioners over this period, still pulled the political strings. Faisal’s new government was shored up by 300 Ottoman officers who fought for his side in the Great War, but a large proportion of the population was still left ignored and dissatisfied.  This discontentment would still bubble under the surface long after the 1932 independence. Iraq was never going to be the stable state that Britain promised under the auspices of the League of Nations. 

Economic Concessions

There are several views on Britain’s intentions with the oil and petroleum reserves that Iraq had.  David Lloyd George wanted to monopolize the oil and petrol reserves for British interests as there was a dependency on US and Mexican oil that was embarrassing to Britain - despite having an abundant and sufficient source with The Turkish Petroleum Company. 

This stance would soon change from a monopolistic policy to one of an open free market by allowing US investment. There were other ways that the oil could serve British interests and that did not necessitate having a monopoly.

The oil revenues would financially support the objectives of the mandate and offset the economic liability she had undertook. Iraq’s own resources would be used but when it came down to the bare facts the Iraqi nation would have no voice in how their own natural resources would be used.

The Conclusion – An empire in decline and a new nation broken

Before the war Iraq was modernizing and progressing into the Industrial world.  The building of the Suez Canal had opened her grain and wool markets to the world.  There was German and British interest in her vast petrol reserves as early as 1907.  The war and the Mandate era had set her far back.

Although Britain was not the originator of the nationalistic fervor it was her heavy handed and brutal response that did little to help Iraq’s future unity and stability, as King Faisal would later comment in his memoirs.

There were ominous signs for Britain also. The Empire was dangerously over-stretched, and cracks were now appearing in Ireland and India as well as Iraq.  Although the idea of Empire was still something the British were proud, other priorities were becoming more apparent on home shores. 

On paper the revolt should have not been as troublesome to suppress for a Great Power such as Britain, with the power of the RAF and mechanized divisions at her disposal to fight the local tribes. Considering the resources, the British had this was not an easily fought campaign, possibly a sign of waning military strength.

The drain on the British Exchequer was not insignificant and the economic situation was bleak at the time. This was something the public purse could not tolerate as Britain had over one million unemployed, the large majority being de-mobilized servicemen. By 1921 unemployment had risen to over two million with several major strikes taking place.  There was no room for troublesome additions to an already troubled Britain.

All these factors contributed to a less that half-hearted commitment to Iraq. By 1932 a poorly produced independence was handed over. There were no winners or favorable outcomes for Iraq but for Britain that small snippet of history held so many signs of the beginnings of imperial decline. 

What do you think of the British Empire and Iraq? Let us know below.

References

David E Omissi – Air Power and Colonial Controls, Manchester University Press 1990

Dr Toby Lodge – The British Mandate in Iraq 1914-32, Institute for Strategic Studies

Amal Vinograv – The 1920 Revolt in Iraq Reconsidered, Cambridge University Press, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 1972

William Shrivers - International Politic and Iraqi Oil 1918-1928, Business History Review 1981 (Pages 517-540)

Judith Yaphe – War and Occupation in Iraq: What Went Right, What Went Wrong?  Middle Eastern Journal 2003, Middle East Institute