Assess the Extent to Which the Empire United Behind British War Aims

8/6/2019 Assess the Extent to Which the Empire United Behind British War Aims.

1/9

1

Assess the extent to which the Empire united behind British war aims.

The assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria at Sarajevo on 28

June 1914 by a member of the Young Bosnia was the starting point of a chain of events that

would lead to an international conflict of dimensions unknown to humanity until that

moment: the Great War.1

Austria blamed Serbia for the attack and decided to invade it.

Germany declared its support to Austria while Russia, the only potency able to counter

balance the Astro-Hungarian power in the region, supported Serbia. Russia on the other hand

had already signed pacts of alliance with France and Britain. When the conflict broke out,

Europe quickly divided between the Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary) and the

Allies (Russia, Britain and France).

The imperial nature of the nations involved (Germany, with an important presence in

Africa and the Pacific, Austria-Hungary in Central and Eastern Europe and later the Ottoman

Empire in the Middle East) explains why the conflict overstepped European boundaries and

had worldwide implications. In this context, Britain entered the conflict with George Vs

formal declaration of war in the name of the British Empire.2

If Britain wanted to win this

war, it was vital that she fought it as a united Empire, and not just as a European nation.

Fortunately, British declaration of war was immediately followed by guarantees of

alliance and support from throughout the imperial possessions.3

Two and a half million men

from the Empire overseas eventually fought on the British side. They came mainly from India

(11/2 million, with 82,000 Egyptians and 92,000 Chinese serving as non-combatant labour

units), New Zealand (19.35% of the white soldiers from the Dominions), Australia (13.43%),

1The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 12 (London, 1986), p. 758.

2S. Stockwell, The War and the British Empire, in J. Turner(ed.),Britain and the First World War(London,

1988), p. 37.3R. Holland, The British Empire and the Great War, 1914-18, Oxford History of the British Empire, Vol. 4

(1999), p. 115.


2/9

Assess the extent to which the Empire united behind British war aims Enrique Requero

2

Canada (13.43%) and South Africa (11.12%). These are relatively high percentages if we

compare them with the 22.11% from the British Isles.4

That the British Empire was united during the Great War seems clear just by looking

at the number of imperial combatants involved. Moreover, their involvement can be seen as

an essential element in what allowed Britain to keep up to the level of the German Empire

and ultimately made it possible for the Allies to win the war. Thanks to the British imperial

forces six campaigns were carried out against German colonies in Togoland, Cameroon, East

Africa, South West Africa, New Guinea and Samoa. These campaigns were of major

relevance in breaking German communications, which were fundamental for the

effectiveness of their commerce-destroyers. Thus, the success of the campaigns granted

security for the Royal Navy and allowed allied troops to be sent into France without major

impediments.5

Nonetheless, the imperial contribution went even further.

Some would argue that the reality of a united British Empire is what encouraged and

made possible the launching of a new campaign of the Allies in the European Easter Front.6

Despite disastrous defeats in Gallipoli (1915) and Mesopotamia (Iraq); the Eastern venture

also granted victories like that of T.E. Lawrence leading the Arabs against the Turks and the

captures of Baghdad (March 1917) and Jerusalem (December 1917). The actions taken by

imperial troops in the East were, therefore, essential for the ultimate development of the war.

They allowed mobility in the paralysed Western Front by taking pressure off Russia and

turning the flank of the Central Powers.7

This campaign also determined the shaping of the

post-war international landscape, because it derived from the disappearance of the Ottoman

Empire, with Britain taking over its role as lord of the Middle East.8

4Stockwell, War and Empire, p. 37.

5Holland, Empire and Great War, p. 115.

6J.S. Galbraith, British War Aims in World War I: A Commentary on Statesmanship,Journal of Imperial

and Commonwealth History, vol. 13 (1984), pp. 26-7.7Idem Stockwell, p. 39.

8 Idem Holland, pp. 132-33.


3/9


3

While the Habsburg, the Hohenzollern, the Ottoman and the Romanov Empires

collapsed during or as a consequence of the Great War, the British Empire did not just subsist

but grew in all senses of the word. The Empire had never had the largest army and navy.

Moreover, it was now in the highest degree of territorial expansion that it would ever reach in

its history, with new territories acquired throughout Africa, the Middle East and the Pacific.

The union of the Empire to the Mother Country made an essential contribution towards

victory, and the success in the Great War had enhanced the British Empire, to an extent that

some saw the post-war situation as the high noon of the Empire.9

As we shall see, the way

in which one values the contribution made by the Empire towards victory is very much

related with the way in which the situation of the Empire after the war is seen. These two

visions are relevant factors when constructing an argument about the aims Britain and the

imperial dependencies sought out in the war.

More recently, some scepticism has been shown against the conception of a British

Empire fully united during the war. Meanwhile, the essential nature of the Empires

contributions to the development of the conflict has also been put into doubt. Although not

openly, some in the British government and in the Cabinet complained against the fact that

the Dominions and India were not collaborating as much as they could. This could be true of

the Dominions.10

However, the complaint seems less justified in the case of India, which

apart from the million and a half soldiers provided, went as far as making a 100 million

donation to the British Treasury in 1917.11

Some in Britain also pointed out that the

dependencies in the war required as much support as they could provide.12

Others like

Kitchener were reluctant to have a campaign in the East because it would divert forces from

9Stockwell, War and Empire, pp. 41-2.10

Idem Stockwell, p. 42-811 Holland, War and Empire, p. 123.12 Idem Stockwell, p. 42.


4/9


4

the Western front, disperse imperial commitments and the war would be unnecessarily

prolonged.13

Although the Great War was a global conflict, its resolution depended on the

development of the fighting in Europe. There were some colonial contingents integrated in

the British forces fighting in the trenches in France. However, the main function of the

imperial dependencies was focused on the side-shows of the war, defending the colonies

and acquiring new territories if necessary. Nevertheless, when Britain demobilised her forces

due to domestic issues (industrial unrest and financial indebtedness, among others) after the

Armistice in November 1918, the imperial forces came to play a central role. They were now

most needed for the defence of the Empire.14

Milner had warned in 1915: Remember that on a previous and most disastrous

occasion it was not war not the strain of war which disrupted the Empire, but the

aftermath of war. This is a risk we ought to run... 15 Milner was referring to how the decision

Britain took of paying for the costs of the Seven Years War at the expense of the Thirteen

Colonies had prompted the American War of Independence. A disruption of the Empire

was a danger likely to be repeated after the Great War. The Mother Country saw herself

forced to decentralise imperial structures more than never before, with the establishment of

Dominions, Crown Colonies, Protectorates, Princely States, etc. However, she was also in

need of making big demands of the dependencies in order to hold the Empire together. But

they were not happy with this. The Viceroy of India complained in 1919 about the huge costs

of maintaining a contingent for the defence of the Middle East, which would be unacceptable

if they were British and not Indian forces.16

Lloyd Georges call for the Dominions to join

13Galbraith, British War Aims, p. 27. Stockwell, War and Empire, p. 42.

14Idem Stockwell, pp. 42-44.

15Quoted in Stockwell, War and Empire, p. 44, quoting W.K. Hancock, Survey of British Commonwealth

Affairs, Vol. 1, Problems of Nationality, 1918-1936(London, 1937), p. 65.16Chelmsford to Montagu, 19 December 1919, quoted in Stockwell, War and Empire, p. 44 , quoting K.

Jeffery, The British Army and the Crisis of Empire 1918-1922 (Manchester, 1984), p. 53.


5/9


5

Britain in the Treaty of Svres in the context of the Chanak crisis in 1922 was responded by

Mackenzie Kings (Canadian Premier) complaint that London had the patronizing assumption

that the Dominions were always going to support Britain, while this decision had to be taken

in their different Parliaments.17

The post-war unrest of the imperial dependencies was

underlined by a growing awareness of their national identities, independent of their position

in the British Empire. These national identities had first appeared during the war, but they

may have been eclipsed by an imperial patriotism if the dependencies had been allowed to

play a most relevant role during the conflict.

As opposed to those who talk about a high noon of the Empire after the war,

resulting from the essential involvement of the dependencies in the conflict, others argue for

a more contingent part being played by them, which lead to an administrative decentralization

of the Empire and to the threat of disintegration of its bonds. They rather see the Great War

as the beginning of the end of the British Empire.18

As we have already seen, it is certain that the Empire was united during the war.

Nonetheless, there is some ambiguity more in the relevance than in the degree of this union.

However, it is still necessary to look at the factors of that unity in order to assess whether the

Empire was united by the British war aims or by something else.

When talking about the aims for which Britain fought the Great War, a distinction has

to be made between those sought by the Cabinet and those sought by the government,

although as the war dragged on it became difficult to differentiate them. The Secretary of

State for India, Edwin S. Montagu, wrote to the Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, to express

the frustration caused on him by the other Cabinet members greed in seeking only the

territorial expansion of the Empire as the prime objective of the war. According to Montagu,

17 W.L. Mackenzie King, Canadian House of Commons, 1 February 1923, quoted in Stockwell, War and

Empire, p. 48, quoting R.M. Dawson (ed.), The Development of Dominion Status 1900-1936(London, 1937),p. 29.18Stockwell, War and Empire, p. 51.


6/9


6

they argued that the territorial expansion was needed for the security of the Empires borders.

However, they would go to one place to protect another only to find that the new place

required going to get a third before it could be secure.19

There was behind the Cabinets

reasoning a sort of imperialistic self-confidence, a product of years of successful Empire and

of a Victorian vision of Britishness as the ideal expression of modern civilization. Thus,

Montagu talked about Walter Long, Secretary of State for Colonies as the kind of Briton who

want to go any place because we can and who dare to say us nay, the kind of Briton who

would say good God, Sir, isnt it splendid to be a British subject? Although Montagu was

writing in 1918, the Cabinet had held the same intentions since 1915, regardless the contrary

development of the war for the Allies. It was expansionism what moved them to launch the

campaign in the Eastern Front in order to consolidate/monopolize the British position of

influence in the region.20

These ambitions did not decrease and as the peace was closer in

1918, the Cabinet became more demanding in this respect.21

On the other hand, the British governments primary objective of the war was to defend

Europe from Germany, by ensuring freedom and democracy in the continent. This was the

concern of Asquith, who preferred to focus the conflict on Europe and had a little inclination

towards involving the Dominions.22

The watershed in the governmental approach to the war

came with Lloyd Georges replacement of Asquith in December 1916.23

George was

determined with his win the war! to grant the complete restitution, full reparation, and

effectual guarantees for security in Europe.24

Given the above-mentioned imperial

dimensions of the nations involved in the conflict, a permanent security in post-war Europe

19 Montagu to Balfour, 20 December 1918, FO800/215, Public Record Office, London. Quoted in Galbraith,

British War Aims, p. 25.20

Idem Galbraith, pp. 27-28.21

Idem Galbraith, p. 40.22Holland, Empire and Great War, p. 124.23

Ibid p. 125.24Great Britain, Parliamentary Debates, 5

thSeries, LXXXVIII, 19 Dec. 1916, cols. 1335-6. Quoted in idem

Galbraith, p. 30.


7/9


7

meant a global permanent security and thus, it was necessary do dismantle the German

Empire.25

The war aims of the government had also fallen into the lines of territorial

expansion. For this, George decided to call on to the imperial dependencies for collaboration.

In order to increase the integration of the dependencies with the British war effort, the

Imperial War Conferences, Cabinet and Development Board were created. Thus, with Lloyd

George the situation went from Britain being in war, with the assistance of the Empire, to the

British Empire being united in War, commanded by Britain.26

Taking into account what has already been said about unity in the Empire during and

after the war, and about the relevance of its involvement; now comes the moment to tackle

the question of whether the Empire was united behind the same war aims (i.e. Britains) and

to what extent. If one takes the vision of an Empire making a fundamental contribution in the

war and an Empire more united than ever in the post-war, it then becomes easy to argue for a

complete imperial concord with homogeneous aspirations. Along these lines, British aims

became the Empires because Britain was not fighting as a mere European nation but as the

leading figure of the Empire. Therefore, what was beneficial for Britain was as much a

benefit for any of the imperial dependencies. From the point of view of the dependencies,

their main reason to support Britain was that they shared the same imperial interests. The

words of the Canadian Liberal Party leader, we raise no question, we take no exception, we

offer no criticism, so long as there is danger at the front,27

may tell us about a Canadian

shared concern for the security of the Empire, regardless where the front of conflict was.

Australia and South Africa probably were as much interested as Britain in seizing the German

colonies in both the Pacific and in Africa. Famous are also the words of the Australian

Premier, when the Empire is at war, so is Australia at war, and those of his political

25

Ibid.26Holland, Empire and Great War, p. 125.

27Sir Wildfrid Laurier, quoted in Holland, Empire and Great War, p. 115.


8/9


8

opponent: to the last man and the last shilling.28

India was quick in providing with men and

rupees for the Imperial War effort, and British plans for the Middle East were favourable to

her in terms of trade and strategy.

However, if the contribution of the Empire is not seen as very relevant in the war and

the conflict is portrayed as the starter of a process of imperial disintegration; a universal

motivation shared by all members of the British Empire becomes less likely. When this

imperial motivation is removed, then we are able to see particular motivations behind those

who supported Britain in the Great War. Sending men to the conflict could have been seen as

an opportunity for the Dominions and India to demonstrate the worthiness of their specific

status within the Empire. The British decision to relegate the imperial contribution to a

supplementary role would then have fostered the construction of national identities. The

South African College Magazinereminded those going to war that it is not for England you

are fighting, but for the British Empire... and in fighting for it, you are fighting for South

Africa. Young South Africa has gone to the battlefields, and... will come back a nation.29 In

Australia, conscription was rejected in referendum twice not because Australians were

against the conflict, but because they did not want to go forced by the Empire but voluntarily

as Australians.30

More weight of the Indian voice in Imperial affairs and a progression

towards Responsible Government were sought by India in exchange for the war

contribution, as Montagu declared in August 1917.31

While the dependencies united externally to Britain during the war, there is evidence

of the war being an occasion for internal divisions. Examples of these are the tensions

between the francophone and the English-speaking populations of Canada during the 1917

28Joseph Cook and A. Fisher, quoted in Stockwell, War and Empire, p. 37.

29South Africa College Magazine, 16, 1 (1915), p. 4; quoted in B. Nasson, War Opinion in South Africa, 1914,

Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 23 (2), p. 255.30

Carl Bridge, The Reason Why: Australia and the Great War, Quadrant(April 1994), p. 12. Quoted inHolland, Empire and Great War, p. 128.31 Ibid, p. 124.


9/9


9

election.32

South Africa was more divided by the war than any other Dominion, with

Hertzogs Nationalist Afrikaners opposing the war, while the English-speaking, the loyalist

Afrikaners and the natives supported the entry of the Union into the conflict.33

The Great War

divided and alienated the Empire if we focus on the internal events of the dependencies

during the conflict. However, it can also be argued that it integrated and united, if we refer to

the interaction between Britain and the Empire between 1914 and 1918, because it would

have been impossible for a divided Empire to win the war. An Empire playing a crucial role

in war suggests that it was motivated by the same aims as Britain. However, if the

dependencies only contributed in specific theatres of war, assisting Britain but not making an

essential change in the development of the war, it is likely that these dependencies joined the

conflict for their own particular interests. The Empire united behind British war aims as far as

that union was allowed by Britain to be translated into effective contributions, and as far as

those aims were at least partially in accordance with those of the imperial dependencies.

(70%)

Bibliography

- The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 12 (London, 1986).

-S. STOCKWELL, The War and the British Empire, in J. Turner (ed.), Britain and the First WorldWar(London, 1988).

- R. HOLLAND, The British Empire and the Great War, 1914-18, Oxford History of the BritishEmpire, Vol. 4 (1999).

- J.S. GALBRAITH, British War Aims In World War I: A Commentary on Statesmanship,Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, vol. 13 (1984).

- B. NASSON, War Opinion in South Africa, 1914, Journal of Imperial and CommonwealthHistory, 23 (2).

32Ibid, p. 126.

33Nasson, War Opinion in South Africa, pp. 251-65.

Documents

Assess the Extent to Which the Empire United Behind British War Aims