Fear of being dragged into another irrelevant war was strong because the British felt that they had been dragged into the First World War over an obscure quarrel in the Balkans because of the alliance system. This cost them a lot of lives, money and economic strength, so they did not want to see this happen again. Particularly seeing as what was left of the British army was spread thinly all over the world, which was mainly sue to the empire, but also because of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.
Another domestic reason why Britain would not make a continental commitment is that social commitments were more important. The failure of national will meant that the public were unwilling to make specific commitments to ensure the peace of Europe after the sacrifices that they made after the First World War. Also, after the war Britain was left with national debts which she had to pay, she had to spend money on the empire and pensions for example. This meant that she did not have the money to spend on an army that would be required if she made a commitment with, for example, France. Overall social spending required forty per cent of government spending by 1930, of which thirty per cent was servicing the national debt. It is clear therefore that what money Britain did have was needed to be spent in Britain on in her empire. However this does not mean that it was impossible for Britain to make a continental commitment because of social reasons, she could have entered a commitment without any intentions of upholding the commitment if war was inevitable.
People believe that it would have been political suicide for any government to have made a continental commitment for Britain at that time. Partially because of the fear factor; as I described above people were scared of being dragged into another irrelevant war after the suffering caused by the last war. The dislikes of the Treaty of Versailles because the public felt it to be too harsh, and wanted to change or reverse it, not make a commitment in Europe.
Now I shall do the same for the foreign reasons; split them into impossible or did not want to. Imperial commitments mean that Britain had commitments to her empire, which constituted approximately one quarter of the land in the world. One of the down points of having such a large empire which was spread out all over the world was that it needed to be protected; which involved having soldiers also spread out all over the world. This therefore reduced the effectiveness of Britain’s armed forces in the event of a sudden war, which would become increasingly likely if she was committed in Europe. Another consequence of having such a large empire was that it weakened an already weak economy, which reduced Britain’s resources, so in the event of another war would weaken her ability. In my opinion this reason made it impossible for Britain to enter a continental commitment.
After the First World War Britain along with most of Europe became part of the League of Nations. The British public were in favour of this because it was what could be called collective security, and the public wanted security after the war. Collective security eased the publics mind by making them feel more secure. However, this meant that Britain was involved in a global commitment which made being part of a European commitment pointless. This is linked to political suicide domestically because the electorate were in favour of membership of the League of nations, so if the government went against this and made a continental commitment instead then they would probably not get in power again, and no political party would do that. This reason for Britain not making a continental commitment is both because it was impossible to do so, but also because they did not want to.
The following three reasons for Britain not entering a continental commitment, in my opinion, are because she did not want to do so; she could have if she wanted to. Firstly, if Britain were to make a continental commitment it would most likely be with France, from 1904 until the war Britain had an alliance with France. However, Britain did not want France to become too strong because this would be dangerous for Britain. After the war France had an army of one million men, Britain had two hundred thousand men, Russia was off the scene due to civil war, Germany had disarmed and Austria-Hungary was non-existent. This meant that France was the most powerful nation in Europe, and Britain wanted a balance of power, which would entail either Germany rearming or France disarming. Therefore, Britain did not want to make a commitment with France because that might make her overly confident. This is obviously linked with making France more assertive, because a commitment with France would make her more; pushy, controlling, demanding and harsh toward Germany. Also Britain did not like the Treaty of Versailles, when the treaty was being made Britain acted as the middleman between France who wanted a harsh treaty and the USA who wanted a fair treaty. If Britain made a commitment to France then they would not change the treaty, which Britain wanted them to do.
In conclusion, I feel that the main reason why Britain did not make a continental commitment in between the wars was the economy not being strong enough to enable Britain to uphold a commitment if a country were to go to war. I feel that this is the most important reason because If Britain did not have the money then they could not do something which would have a strong likelihood of leading the country into war they could not afford. Imperial commitments is second in my opinion because if Britain were to have entered a continental commitment they would have had to be able to go to war at any time. That would not have been possible, because there army was thinly spread over the world. Next is commitment to the League of Nations, because having a global commitment renders a European commitment pointless, however it would have been possible. Then I would put fear of being dragged into another irrelevant war as fourth, mainly because of the strong public opinion. After those four main reasons I would put; would make France even more assertive, balance of power, social commitments, dislike of Versailles and as least important political suicide.
