Why did Britain Oppose Continental Commitments After 1918?

However, Britain still did commit itself to some agreements, but only when it meant less for her to do in the long run. For example, in signing the Locarno Treaties in 1925, it meant that France were no longer as fearful of Germany, and less pushy for Britain to help France in enforcing the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. Britain had made herself clear by signing Locarno that she had no wish to get involved with Europe, and by leaving the "East" loophole in the treaty, showed that she only cared about herself. But this was to do with many reasons, not firstly because Britain's economy was in such a sorry state that they could not afford to come to the aid of anyone militarily. By signing this security for France it meant Britain was protected as well as helping not having to fight for them. The balance of power in Europe meant that Britain felt secure at that present time as the major contenders for power were in similar states. Russia, the previously most feared power, was in a state of collapse due to communism (although this still provoked perceived fears); Germany was economically destroyed as well as being held back by the Treaty of Versailles; Turkey and Austria were in similar states to that of Germany and Italy and France were supposed to be allies of Britain. Therefore, she did not feel the need to agree to any continental commitments because at the time there was no possibility of a situation in which an opposing power would be in a stronger military position. This factor of the Balance of Power is another important factor in Britain opposing continental commitments, although initially these agreements were necessary for Britain to feel safe.

This factor has an important link with the Military and Domestic Economics. Immediately after the first world war

"The British flag has never flown over a more powerful and united Empire". It was at the end of the First World War in 1918, that Britain believed they were at their zenith and the height of their power. But was this the reason to them opposing proposed continental commitments? And in truth, were they really opposing these commitments in the first place? There are many factors that need to be considered when trying to answer this question, such as the issues of Empire, domestic economics, public opinion, the military, the League of Nations and the balance of power in Europe at the time.

At the end of WW1, Britain found herself in a continuing economic slump. Owing the USA a huge debt, it was initially thought that Russia, who in turn owed Britain money as well, would pay back their debt so Britain could pay back the USA. However, the Russian revolution meant that Britain would not see this money, therefore leaving them at a loss. Many traditional industries, such as coal, steel and shipbuilding were no longer competitive due to new, more convenient manufacturers springing up across the globe and the spread of the industrial revolution. As will become clear, this factor is almost a backbone to all the other potential reasons for Britain not wanting to become involved in continental commitments. She could not afford to become entangled within a war, nor risk anything that would entail her having to spend any money externally or internally than was strictly necessary.

As a result she could not afford, nor did not want to have to spend any money on the military.