Discuss the view that during the 1920s the British always put their imperial interests before their commitment to the peace and stability of Europe.

Alexander Zafiriou

Britain, to an extent, was more concerned with her empire than with European affairs during the 1920s. She only deployed the army when her empire was involved, for example in Ireland, India or Australia. On the other hand, by 1929 there was no immediate threat of war, and as Winston Churchill said, “The state of Europe was tranquil”, partly because of the many treaties that were signed during the 1920s that Britain orchestrated. But the main revisionist argument against Britain during this period was that they did not do enough to ensure the peace and stability of Europe as the second world war did break out less than ten years later, but this was not only due to increased concern in the empire. Britain also had domestic concerns; public opinion played a major role in the actions employed by the government and that the government were looking to minimise needless costs due to the fragile economic situation in the country after world war one and therefore did not want to send an army into a situation that did not concern her. Britain’s much debated role in the Locarno Treaty of 1926, although it brought Germany into the League of Nations, pulled France out of the Rhineland and guaranteed Germany’s western borders, it did not guarantee Germany’s eastern borders and thus gave Germany the ability to bargain the partial revision of the Treaty of Versailles, which was a popular opinion at this time. Britain did not want to involve herself in another war after the horrors of the First World War and were prepared to take the necessary measures to prevent it from happening.

After the First World War, Britain’s empire became larger and thus so did her imperial interests and the need for isolationism increased. With the treaty of Sevres that dealt with Turkey: Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq as well as Germany’s colonies in Africa, were entrusted to Britain as ‘mandates’ by the League of Nations. This coupled with the new problems that were arising in the other British colonies all over the world such as the Indian and Irish pushes for independence and Australia’s attempt for ‘dominion’ status meant that Britain was forced to tackle her own problems as well as those of the League. Naturally her interests came first and this was the source of much criticism. But the view that was common within the public opinion was that: there was no need to waste money on problems that did not concern Britain. This was characterised later on by Neville Chamberlain when he said, ”How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.” The government, under Lloyd-George, had to listen to the public opinion that, at this point, was not in favour of further war and some parts of the public even sympathised with Germany after the Treaty of Versailles that they thought was too harsh on her.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The empire was not the only concern for the British government. Public opinion was not a force to be reckoned with, especially when many politicians share the same view. The majority of the British public did not want another war after the atrocities that occurred between 1914 and 1918. When World war one began, there was an air of complacency within the British camp that the war would be ‘over by Christmas’, and so it was a shock to them that the war lasted four years, and thus many wanted to minimise the chances of anything like this ever happening again. At the same time, a common feeling among the population was that the Treaty of Versailles had been too harsh on Germany. Lloyd-George had thought the Treaty as a success as he had managed to bring about a compromise between Georges ‘the tiger’ Clemenceau’s demands for Germany to be broken up into little states, and Woodrow Wilson’s simple demands for self-determination and disarmament, the outcome was still brutal on Germany because it took away one third of her territory and handed it to a newly-created Poland and took away her military capabilities. Major politicians, although not inherently sorry for Germany after this outcome, voiced their concerns over the new arrangements, which could cause a German backlash in the future. Harold Nicholson, a British diplomat in 1919, said, “The treaties imposed on our enemies were neither just nor wise,” and even John Maynard Keynes, who was present at the signing of the treaty, said that it was “one of the most serious acts of unwisdom for which our statesmen have been responsible.” This created a problem for the government because it meant that they would have to go against the wishes of the public and many important officials who were against the treaty, if they were to involve themselves in European affairs that dealt mainly with the fate of Germany after the war. This is why isolationism seemed the right way to go for the government.

As Britain’s empire increased after the First World War, so did their troubles. Many of Britain’s colonies demanded independence and this meant that Britain had to focus on their own problems before they could deal with those of the League of Nations. India, for example, were unhappy with the slow implementation of an independently run government and so, when riots broke out in Amritsar in 1919, the Government had to react and sent an army to quell this rebellion. Three hundred and seventy nine were massacred there. There was also trouble in Ireland in 1921 and there were problems in the mandates in the Middle Eastern countries that Britain had received after the war. Many of these problems arose during the 1920s and continued until those colonies received independence from Britain, thus the British government were not able to participate fully in European affairs while ‘domestic’ problems were ensuing. Although these constraints did not mean that Britain had to withdraw completely from international affairs, it meant that Britain were not able to contribute any military towards the League because of economic considerations.

Britain, after the war, was not in a great financial situation. Although she was not in serious debt, she was owed more by the other European countries than she owed America, her economy did take a turn for the worse shortly afterwards. Her share in the China market fell from sixteen percent to nine percent, and her share in the world export trade fell gradually from thirty percent in 1913 to twenty-two percent in 1937. Her exports outweighed her imports but the gap between the two was beginning to close up. This meant that the Government had to cut spending and this was done under what was known as the ‘Geddes axe’. This was a cut in military spending on the basis of the ‘ten-year rule’ that operated on the assumption that Britain was not going to involve herself in another war for the next ten years. The rule, renewed every year, meant that the government could cut spending on military but also meant that Britain were unprepared for any international developments such as France invading the Ruhr to force Germany to pay reparations.

When France invaded the Ruhr in 1924, Britain had to act. This was a delicate matter though because France was an ally and held strong anti-German feelings, but the public were more in favour of Germany because they felt that she had been unfairly treated. Thus the respective governments, including Britain, came to Locarno to sign an agreement over the matter. This treaty brought France out of the Ruhr and Germany into the League of Nations. It guaranteed Germany’s western borders and thus allayed French fears for a possible German invasion. This was evidence of Britain involving herself in foreign affairs. Austen Chamberlain, the foreign minister at the time, managed to keep every side happy and made sure that Germany’s actions could be watched by bringing her into the League. Chamberlain said that the treaty was “the real dividing line between the war years and the years of peace.” As a result of this agreement, Briand, Chamberlain and Stresemann, representing France, Britain and Germany respectively, were awarded the Nobel peace prize for this achievement. This treaty was not the only piece of international meeting that Britain involved herself in. Lloyd-George attended the Genoa conference in 1922 where France demanded that Germany pay the reparations due to the allies after the war, and she demanded that Russia pay off her debts to France dating back to 1905. This culminated in the Rapallo treaty, which Russia and Germany signed, but this did not work out, as Germany could not pay due to her economical difficulties at the time. Britain’s actions here certainly did help keep the peace and stability in Europe intact and after all this and the Kellogg-Briand pact in1928 that guaranteed peace between sixty-two countries, there was no threat of war.

Britain’s involvement in international affairs in the 1920s, although limited to diplomacy because of economic and political considerations at home, was not altogether overridden by her commitment to her empire. The government made an effort to stabilise central Europe and to make sure that no military conflict would break out. This was secured but was evidently not enough as another world war did break out only ten years later and thus meant that Britain and the other allies had not done enough to secure this peace. Britain’s commitments were centred on her empire, as this was a period in which many anti-British uprisings occurred which required the utmost care on Britain’s part to dispel. She had to devote her attention to the matters, which concerned her most, and this involved the empire, but Britain certainly did her part to keep international tension to a low.