I want to touch on this topic in connection with the role that Britain played in the collapse of our empire. It did not last long on the map, after the First World War. What happened? It does not fit in my head, the empire, which was able to bury all its competitors, suddenly collapsed in almost 50 years right before the eyes of the whole world?
I am especially interested in how the USSR and the USA contributed to this. After all, it cannot be an accident, the fact that the main disintegration of BI began after the Second World War, when the USSR and the United States noticeably intensified?
According to media reports:
For the first time on the verge of disintegration British empire ended up in the 70s and 80s. XVIII century, when the rebellious colonies in North America won the War of Independence (which marked the beginning of the formation of the United States). Although Britain did not manage to regain control over this territory (another attempt was made in 1812-1814), but during the XIX century. the remaining territories were significantly expanded, new possessions were conquered. Mindful of the past, the rulers of the country watched with concern the development of the situation in the resettlement domains. Confirmation of the validity of the alarms was flared up in 1837-1838. the uprising in Canada, which was suppressed only at the cost of great efforts. In the middle of the century, the most far-sighted British politicians came to the conclusion that it was possible to keep such possessions in the orbit of British influence only through concessions - to allow the unification of individual colonies into unions built on the principle of federation, and to grant them autonomy within the empire. The term "dominion" was introduced to denote such formations. Canada was the first to receive the status of dominion in 1867 - the most developed of the British colonies, which included Quebec, once taken from France, and, moreover, bordering the United States. In 1901 Australia acquired this status, and in 1907 - New Zealand... After the bloody Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902. the republic of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State were annexed to the possessions already owned by Britain in southern Africa. In 1910, the Union of South Africa was created - a federation of old and new possessions, which officially received the status of dominion in 1921.
The autonomy of the dominions and their rights expanded. After the First World War, Dominion delegations began to take part in international conferences. On the one hand, thanks to this, Great Britain acquired additional allies in difficult negotiations on a post-war settlement; on the other hand, the invitation of the dominions to international negotiations high level was evidence of the strengthening of their position. In the mid-1920s. the dominions achieved de facto equality with the mother country in international affairs, which in 1931 was enshrined in the Westminster Statute, a kind of constitution of the British Empire. Dominions have become fully sovereign states, retaining only a formal link to political system metropolis (institute of the governor-general, appointed by the British monarch on the recommendation of the local parliament, etc.).
Thus, the process of sovereignization of dominions stretched out over many decades and was a chain of successive concessions of the imperial center to dynamically developing resettlement possessions, which eventually overtook the metropolis in many respects. At the same time, the new nations that were forming in the resettlement colonies of Great Britain were ready to be content with a change in the real status of their country while maintaining the external, ritual form of dependence on the metropolis, which was seen as a tribute to the established tradition and the common past. Another thing is the national possessions, where the separatist movement developed under the slogans of overthrowing foreign domination and restoring independence. It is characteristic that the granting of the dominion status to Ireland in 1921 and India in 1947 did not satisfy the peoples of these countries, and republics were proclaimed there.
The Irish problem became acute in the political life of Great Britain in the last decades of the 19th century. Around the question of Home Rule - self-government for Ireland - fierce political battles unfolded, on the outcome of which the fate of the British governments often depended. Members of the national liberation movement in Ireland used various tactics of action - from armed uprising to non-violent resistance. It was the freedom fighters of this country who invented the tactics of boycott and obstruction, which they successfully used. At the end of the First World War, the coalition government, led by D. Lloyd George, decided to grant Ireland self-government, but disagreements over its implementation led to a new uprising on the island, which ended in gaining de facto independence. Anti-British sentiments in Ireland were so strong that during the war against fascism the country, while remaining formally a British dominion, almost sided with Hitler.
Having lost Ireland and its supremacy over the dominions, Britain after the First World War not only retained, but also expanded its "native" possessions. A significant part of the "mandated territories" - the former German colonies and Turkish provinces, fell under its control. However, the continued lag of the metropolis in the pace of economic development, the weakening of its naval power and general changes in the world arena made the final collapse of the empire inevitable. On the eve and during the Second World War, plans were already being drawn up to change India's status within the British Commonwealth. But the granting of de facto independence to the largest British colony by the Labor government of Attlee in 1947 shocked many residents of the metropolis. Some of them experienced the evacuation of the British authorities from India as painful as if they were evacuated from the County of Kent, which borders London. The actions of the Laborites were sharply criticized by representatives of the Conservative Party. After the outbreak of war between India and Pakistan and the establishment of a dictatorial regime in Burma, which also gained independence, Attlee's government decided to switch to a policy of containment on the colonial issue. The Conservatives, returning to power in 1951, tried to take an even tougher stance against the liberation movement in the colonies. In addition to the ongoing war in Malaya, military operations in Kenya and Cyprus were added. The conservatives' efforts to save the remnants of the empire culminated in an attempt to intervene against Egypt in 1956, jointly with France and Israel (Suez Crisis). The head of the government at that time, A. Eden, did not dare to openly declare the nature of the events to the people of his country and was forced to capitulate together with the allies after threats from the USSR and a negative reaction from the United States. Therefore, the end of the collapse of the empire was only a matter of time.
The collapse of the British Empire stretched over decades and took the form of "erosion" rather than "explosion" or "collapse". This process had considerable costs and sacrifices. And yet, non-standard decisions taken in time allowed the metropolis to avoid more disastrous consequences, including at the final stage of the imperial collapse. Proof of this is the history of France, which from the second half of the 1940s to the early 1960s. waged a series of colonial wars, of which two are very large - in Indochina and Algeria. But the sacrifices made did not change the result - the empire collapsed.
The British and French, not without reason, believe that they owe a great deal to the final disintegration of their colonial systems after the Second World War by the USA and the USSR. An important role in the crisis of both empires was played by the ideological influence - liberal egalitarianism and socialist internationalism, respectively. But the influence of the superpowers on the colonial periphery was primarily a consequence of the weakening of the positions of the leading European countries in the economy and the military sphere. The famous historian P. Kennedy, comparing the aggregate potential of Britain, France and Italy with the potentials of the United States and the USSR at the turn of the 1940s-1950s, proved that both in terms of economic power and period "in the background".
However, freed from the burden of colonial concerns, the countries Western Europe strengthened their positions. Having followed the path of integration, having achieved sustainable economic growth and a significant increase in living standards, they became a powerful center of attraction for many "formal" and "informal" components of the Soviet empire. New centers of attraction have arisen on southern borders THE USSR. At the same time, the economy of the Union itself and Soviet society as a whole were already in a state of "stagnation."
Well, and more secret information, I do not know how objective they are. The author blames (or merit) the role of President Roosevelt in the collapse of the British Empire:
The meetings of military representatives of both sides during the day caused some disruption to the ideal unity that marked the morning. The British again tried in every possible way to convince us to give as much material as possible on Lend-Lease to England and as little The Soviet Union... I do not think that they were directly guided by political motives, although it should be admitted that in essence their lack of faith in Russia's ability to resist was political in nature. At these meetings, Marshall, King, and Arnold continued to insist that it was prudent to give the Soviets all possible assistance. After all, be that as it may, they argued, the German armies are in Russia; tanks, planes, cannons in the hands of the Soviets will bring death to the Nazis, while for England Lend-Lease in the given time will only mean building up stocks. In addition, we, of course, could not forget about the needs of our own defense, about what is necessary to strengthen our army and navy.
For their part, Admiral Pound, General Dill, and Air Chief Marshal Freeman argued in every way that these reserves would ultimately be more useful in the Allied war effort. They stubbornly insisted that the war materials handed over to the Soviets would inevitably be seized by the Nazis, and that it was in America's own interests to send most of the materials to England. Fortunately, American representatives understood differently the interests of America itself, as well as the interests of the war in a broad sense. I wondered if the British Empire was seeking to have the Nazis and the Russians annihilate each other while England builds up power.
Meanwhile, my father was working with Sumner Welles on a draft of a document. Then we did not yet know what it was; as it turned out, they were working on the text of the Atlantic Charter and on a letter to Stalin, which expressed our common determination to work together to achieve a common victory over Hitlerism.
That evening, the Prime Minister again dined on the August. This dinner looked less formal; there were no higher military ranks on it. Only the father, the prime minister, their closest aides, my brother and myself were present. Therefore, there were many more opportunities to get to know Churchill better.
He was again on top of the situation. His cigars burned to ashes, brandy steadily diminished. But this, apparently, did not affect him at all. His thought worked no less, if not more clearly, and his tongue became even sharper.
And yet, compared to the previous evening, the conversation proceeded differently. Then Churchill interrupted his speech only in order to listen to the questions that were asked to him. Now others were adding something to the common cauldron, and therefore the cauldron bubbled, and twice it almost went over the edge. It was felt that two people, accustomed to being in charge, had already measured their strengths, had already probed each other, and now they were preparing to throw each other a direct challenge. We must not forget that at that time Churchill was the leader of a belligerent country, and his father was only the president of a state that had clearly defined its position.
After dinner, Churchill was still in charge of the conversation. However, the change was already beginning to take its toll. It first emerged sharply in connection with the question of the British Empire. The initiative came from the father.
Of course, ”he remarked in a confident and somewhat sly tone,“ of course, after the war, one of the prerequisites for a lasting peace should be the broadest freedom of trade.
He paused. Head down, the Prime Minister gazed at his father from under his brows.
No artificial barriers, - continued the father. - As few economic agreements as possible that give some states advantages over others. Opportunities for expanding trade. Opening up markets to healthy competition. He looked innocently around the room.
Churchill turned in his chair.
British Empire Trade Agreements: - He began impressively. His father interrupted him:
Yes. These imperial trade agreements are what we're talking about. It is because of them that the peoples of India and Africa, the entire colonial Middle and Far East, have fallen behind so much in their development.
Churchill's neck turned purple and he leaned forward.
Mr. President, England does not intend for a moment to relinquish its advantageous position in the British dominions. The trade that brought greatness to England will continue on terms laid down by British ministers.
You see, Winston, ”my father said slowly,“ somewhere along this line, you and I may have some disagreements. I am firmly convinced that we cannot achieve a lasting peace if it does not entail the development of backward countries, backward peoples. But how can this be achieved? It is clear that this cannot be achieved by the methods of the eighteenth century. So here:
Who is talking about eighteenth century methods?
Any minister of yours who recommends a policy in which colonial country a huge amount of raw materials is seized without any compensation for the people of a given country. The methods of the twentieth century mean the development of industry in the colonies and the growth of the well-being of the people by raising their living standards, by enlightening them, by making them healthy, by providing them with compensation for their raw materials.
We all leaned forward, trying not to say a word of this conversation. Hopkins smiled, Churchill's adjutant, Commodore Thompson grimaced and was clearly alarmed. The Prime Minister himself looked as if he was about to have a blow.
You mentioned India, ”he growled.
Yes. I believe that we cannot wage a war against fascist slavery without at the same time striving to free the peoples of the whole world from the backward colonial policy.
What about the Philippines?
I'm glad you mentioned them. As you know, in 1946 they will gain independence. And besides, they already have modern sanitary conditions, a modern system of public education; illiteracy there is steadily declining:
Any interference in imperial economic agreements is unacceptable.
They are artificial:
They form the basis of our greatness.
Peace, the father said firmly, is incompatible with the preservation of despotism. The cause of peace requires the equality of peoples, and it will be realized. The equality of peoples implies the broadest freedom of trade competition. Would anyone deny that one of the main reasons for the outbreak of the war was Germany's desire to seize a dominant position in Central Europe's trade?
A dispute on this topic between Churchill and his father could not lead to anything. The conversation continued, but the Prime Minister began to take possession of him again. Churchill spoke no longer in separate phrases, but in whole paragraphs, and a worried, gloomy expression began to disappear from Commodore Thompson's face. The Prime Minister spoke more and more confidently, his voice filling the room again. However, one question remained unanswered; he did not receive an answer at the next two conferences at which these people met. India, Burma were a living reproach to the British. Having spoken about them aloud once, my father continued to remind the English of them, touching the wounds of their ailing conscience with his strong fingers, pushing, urging them on. He did this not out of stubbornness, but because he was convinced that he was right; Churchill knew this, and that was what worried him the most.
He deftly turned the conversation to something else, just as deftly drew Harry Hopkins, my brother, me - all of us into it, just to take my father away from this topic, not to hear his statements on the colonial issue and his persistent, annoying arguments about the injustice of preferential imperial trade agreements.
It was already three o'clock in the morning when the English guests said goodbye. I helped my father get to his cabin and sat down there to have a last cigarette with him.
A real old Tory, isn't it? - grumbled the father. “A real old school Tory.
At one time it seemed to me that it would explode.
Well, - the father smiled, - we will work together with him. Don't worry about that. We'll get along fine with him.
Unless you touch India.
How to say? I suppose we will talk more about India more thoroughly before we exhaust this topic. And about Burma, and about Java, and about Indo-China, and about Indonesia, and about all African colonies, and about Egypt and Palestine. We'll talk about all of this. Do not lose sight of one circumstance. Winnie (1) has one ultimate mission in life - but only one. He is the ideal wartime prime minister. His main, only task is to make England stand out in this war.
And, in my opinion, he will achieve this.
Right. But have you noticed how he changes the subject when it comes to some post-war issue?
You raised sensitive issues. Delicate for him.
There is another reason as well. He has the perfect mindset for a military leader. But for Winston Churchill to lead England after the war? No, it won't.
Life has shown that the English people agreed with their father on this issue.
The next morning, at about eleven o'clock, the Prime Minister again appeared in the captain's cabin of the Augusta. He sat with his father for two hours, studying the Charter. Before breakfast, he, Cadogan, Sumner Welles, Harry Hopkins, and his father were working on the last one. During these two hours I entered the cabin several times and caught snatches of conversation on the fly; in doing so, I tried to understand how Churchill would be able to reconcile the ideas of the Charter with what he had said the night before. I don't think he knew it himself.
It should be noted that the greatest contribution to the creation of the Charter was made by Sumner Welles, who worked hardest on it. The charter was his brainchild from the moment it was conceived in Washington; he flew out of Washington with a working draft of its final text in his briefcase; the whole world knows how great was and remains the significance of this declaration. And, of course, it is not he and not the father who are to blame for the fact that she is so poorly performed.
In any case, work on the revision of individual formulations continued until breakfast; then the prime minister and his aides returned to their ship. After breakfast, my father was busy with the mail and the bills of Congress that required his attention: the plane was leaving for Washington on the same day. By mid-afternoon Churchill had managed to snatch a few minutes of rest. From the deck of the Augusta, we watched as he stepped off the Prince of Wales, intending to walk along the shore and climb the cliff overlooking the bay. A whaleboat was launched; English sailors rowed him to the gangway, and the Prime Minister quickly ran down the steps. He wore a short-sleeved knitted sweatshirt and trousers that did not reach the knees. From our vantage point, he seemed like a huge fat boy, who lacked only a toy bucket and a shovel to play in the sand on the beach. Once in the whaleboat, he went straight to the steering wheel and took command. We heard his abrupt orders; the sailors rowed with great zeal. Finally, they all disappeared from view, but we were later told about the further course of events. The Prime Minister quickly climbed a cliff three or four hundred feet above the shore. Climbing up there, he looked down and saw that some of his companions were at ease on the beach, hoping for a glimpse of the sun. Churchill immediately gathered a handful of pebbles and began to amuse himself, scattering his frightened companions with successful hits. Merry fun of the mighty of this world!
At seven o'clock, the Prime Minister again came to our dinner - this time truly unofficial: apart from Father and Churchill, only Harry Hopkins, my brother and I were present. It was an evening of relaxation; despite yesterday's argument, we were all, as it were, members of the same family and had a leisurely and relaxed conversation. Yet Churchill still had a desire to convince us that the United States should immediately declare war on Germany, but he knew that on this issue he was doomed to failure. The reports of the meetings of our military representatives, which took place continuously in recent days, spoke of the growing conviction on both sides that, in order to achieve final victory, England needed American industry and active American action; however, hardly anyone had doubted this before.
Awareness of this dependence could not but affect the relationship between the two leaders. Gradually, very slowly, the mantle of the leader slid from the shoulders of the Englishman onto the shoulders of the American.
We were convinced of this later, in the evening, with a new outbreak of the very dispute that had made us all hold our breath the day before. It was a kind of final chord of militant Churchillian conservatism. Churchill got up and paced the cabin, oratory and gesturing. Finally, he stopped in front of his father, was silent for a second, and then, shaking his short, thick index finger in front of his very nose, exclaimed:
Mr. President, it seems to me that you are trying to end the British Empire. This can be seen from the whole course of your thoughts about the structure of the world in the post-war period. Despite this, ”he waved his forefinger,“ despite this, we know that you are our only hope. And you, - his voice trembled dramatically, - you know that we know it. You know that we know that without America our empire will not survive.
On Churchill's side, this was an admission that peace could be won only on the basis of conditions set by the United States of America. And by saying this, he thereby acknowledged that British colonial policy had come to an end, just like Britain's attempts to dominate world trade.
So who is right and from what did the empire collapse, which had been taking shape for centuries and reached the peak of its territorial growth on the eve of the collapse, having previously won both world wars, conquering the colonies of defeated opponents?
ORION Forum
http://www.forum-orion.com/
Despite the stubborn opposition of the metropolis, industry developed in the countries of the British Empire (especially in the resettlement colonies and India), a national bourgeoisie and a proletariat were formed, which became an increasingly serious force in political life. The Russian Revolution of 1905-07 exerted a great influence on the development of the national liberation movement in the British Empire. The Indian National Congress in 1906 put forward a demand for self-government for India. However, the British authorities brutally suppressed anti-colonial demonstrations.
In the first decades of the 20th century, the dominions of the Australian Union (1901), New Zealand (1907), the Union of South Africa (1910), Newfoundland (1917) were formed. Dominion governments began to be involved in the discussion of issues foreign policy and the defense of the British Empire at imperial conferences. The capitalists of the dominions, together with the British capitalists, participated in the exploitation of the colonial part of the British Empire.
In the late 19th - early 20th centuries. The Anglo-German imperialist contradictions (including their colonial and naval rivalry), which played a major role in the outbreak of World War I in 1914-18, acquired special significance. The entry of Great Britain into the war automatically entailed the participation of the dominions in it. The domination of Great Britain actually extended also to Egypt (area 995 thous. km 2, population over 11 million people), Nepal (area 140 thousand km 2, population about 5 million people), Afghanistan (area 650 thousand km 2, population about 6 million people) and China Xianggang (Hong Kong) with a population of 457 thousand people. and Weihaiwei with a population of 147 thousand.
I AM World War broke the established economic ties in the British Empire. This contributed to the accelerated economic development dominions. Great Britain was forced to recognize their rights to conduct an independent foreign policy. The first performance of the dominions and India on the world stage was their participation in the signing of the Treaty of Versailles (1919). As independent members, the dominions joined the League of Nations.
As a result of World War I, the British Empire expanded. The imperialists of Great Britain and the dominions seized a number of possessions from their rivals. The British Empire included the mandated territories of Great Britain (Iraq, Palestine, Transjordan, Tanganyika, part of Togo and Cameroon), the Union of South Africa (South-West Africa), the Australian Union (part of New Guinea and the adjacent islands of Oceania), New Zealand (the islands of Western Samoa). British imperialism expanded its positions in the Near and Middle East. Many states in this region, which were not formally part of the British Empire (for example, the states of the Arabian Peninsula), were in fact semi-colonies of Great Britain.
Under the influence of the Great October Socialist Revolution, a powerful national liberation movement began in the colonial and dependent countries. The crisis of the British Empire unfolded, which became a manifestation of the general crisis of capitalism. In 1918-22, 1928-33 there were massive anti-colonial demonstrations in India. The struggle of the Afghan people forced Great Britain in 1919 to recognize the independence of Afghanistan. In 1921, after a stubborn armed struggle, Ireland achieved the status of dominion (without the northern part - Ulster, which remained part of Great Britain); in 1949 Ireland was declared an independent republic. In 1922 Great Britain formally recognized the independence of Egypt. In 1930, the British Mandate over Iraq was terminated. However, enslaving "allied treaties" were imposed on Egypt and Iraq, which in fact retained British rule.
There was a further strengthening of the political independence of the dominions. The Imperial Conference of 1926 and the so-called Westminster Statute of 1931 officially recognized their complete independence in external and domestic policy... But economically, the dominions (except for Canada, which was becoming more and more dependent on the United States) remained largely agro-raw materials appendages of the metropolis. The countries of the British Empire (except Canada) entered the sterling bloc created by Great Britain in 1931. In 1932, the Ottawa Agreements were concluded, establishing a system of imperial preferences (preferred duties on trade between countries and territories of the British Empire). This testified to the existence of still strong ties between the metropolis and the dominions. Despite the recognition of the independence of the dominions, the metropolis basically still retained control over their foreign policy relations. The Dominions had practically no direct diplomatic ties with foreign states. At the end of 1933, Newfoundland, whose economy was on the verge of collapse as a result of the rulership of the British and American monopolies, was stripped of its dominion status and came under the control of the British governor. World economic crisis 1929-33 significantly exacerbated the contradictions within the British Empire. American, Japanese and German capital penetrated into the countries of the British Empire. However, English capital retained a dominant position in the empire. In 1938, about 55% of the total amount of British investments abroad fell on the countries of the British Empire (1945 million pounds sterling out of 3,545 million pounds sterling). Great Britain occupied the main place in their foreign trade.
All the countries of the British Empire were covered by a single system of "imperial defense", which included military bases in strategically important points (Gibraltar, Malta, Suez, Aden, Singapore, etc.). British imperialism used the bases for the struggle to expand its influence in the countries of Asia and Africa, against the national liberation movement of the oppressed peoples.
At the very beginning of World War II, 1939-45. centrifugal tendencies intensified in the British Empire. If Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa entered the war on the side of the metropolis, Ireland (Eire) declared its neutrality. During the war, which exposed the weakness of British imperialism, the crisis of the British Empire sharply escalated. As a result of a series of heavy defeats suffered in the war with Japan, the position of Great Britain was undermined in South-East Asia... In the countries of the British Empire, a broad anti-colonial movement developed.
Results of World War II, which ended with the complete defeat of the bloc fascist states, the formation of the world socialist system and the general weakening of the positions of imperialism created extremely favorable conditions for the struggle of the colonial peoples for their liberation and for the defense of the newly acquired independence. The process of decay unfolded colonial system imperialism, part of which was the collapse of the British colonial empire. In 1946 the independence of Transjordan was proclaimed. Under the pressure of a powerful anti-imperialist struggle, Great Britain was forced to grant independence to India (1947); at the same time, the country was divided along religious lines into India (dominion from 1947, republic from 1950) and Pakistan (dominion from 1947, republic from 1956). Burma and Ceylon also took an independent path of development (1948). In 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted a decision to abolish (since May 15, 1948) the British Mandate for Palestine and to create on its territory two independent states (Arab and Jewish). Trying to stop the struggle of the peoples for independence, the British imperialists waged colonial wars in Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus, and Aden, and used armed violence in other colonies.
However, all attempts to preserve the colonial empire failed. The overwhelming majority of the peoples of the colonial part of the British Empire achieved political independence. If in 1945 the population of the British colonies was about 432 million people, then by 1970 it was about 10 million. The following were freed from British colonial rule: in 1956 - Sudan; in 1957 - Ghana (former British colony Gold Coast and the former British Trust Territory of Togo), Malaya (in 1963, together with the former British colonies of Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo (Sabah) formed the Federation of Malaysia; Singapore left the Federation in 1965); in 1960 - Somalia (the former British colony of Somaliland and the former UN Trust Territory of Somalia, which was under Italian rule), Cyprus, Nigeria (in 1961, the northern part of the UN Trust Territory of Cameroon Britain became part of the Nigeria Federation; southern part British Cameroon, having united with the Republic of Cameroon, formed the Federal Republic of Cameroon in 1961), in 1961 - Sierra Leone, Kuwait, Tanganyika: in 1962 - Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda; in 1963 - Zanzibar (in 1964 as a result of the unification of Tanganyika and Zanzibar, the United Republic of Tanzania was created), Kenya; in 1964 - Malawi (formerly Nyasaland), Malta, Zambia (formerly Northern Rhodesia); in 1965 - Gambia, Maldives: in 1966 - Guyana (former British Guiana), Botswana (former Bechuanaland), Lesotho (former Basutoland), Barbados; 1967 - former Aden (until 1970 - People's Republic South Yemen; from 1970 - People's Democratic Republic Yemen); in 1968 - Mauritius, Swaziland; 1970 - Tonga, Fiji. The pro-British monarchical regimes in Egypt (1952) and Iraq (1958) were overthrown. The former ward of the territory of New Zealand achieved independence Western Samoa(1962) and the former Trust Territory of Australia, Great Britain and New Zealand Nauru (1968). "Old Dominions" - Canada (in 1949 Newfoundland became part of it), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa- finally turned into states politically independent from Great Britain.
France in the 18th century was a monarchy based on bureaucratic centralization and a regular army. The socio-economic and political regime that existed in the country was formed as a result of complex compromises worked out in the course of a long political confrontation and civil wars XIV-XVI centuries. One of these compromises existed between the royal power and the privileged estates - for the renunciation of political rights, the state power protected the social privileges of these two estates by all means at its disposal. Another compromise existed in relation to the peasantry - during a long series of peasant wars in the XIV-XVI centuries. the peasants achieved the abolition of the overwhelming majority of monetary taxes and the transition to subsistence relations in agriculture. The third compromise existed in relation to the bourgeoisie (which at that time was the middle class, in whose interests the government also did a lot, preserving a number of privileges of the bourgeoisie in relation to the bulk of the population (the peasantry) and supporting the existence of tens of thousands of small enterprises, the owners of which constituted the French stratum. bourgeois). However, the regime that emerged as a result of these complex compromises did not ensure the normal development of France, which in the 18th century. began to lag behind its neighbors, primarily England. In addition, over-exploitation increasingly armed the popular masses against themselves, whose most legitimate interests were completely ignored by the state.
Gradually during the XVIII century. At the top of French society, an understanding was ripening that the Old Order with its underdeveloped market relations, chaos in the government system, a corrupt system of selling public offices, the absence of clear legislation, a "Byzantine" taxation system and an archaic system of estate privileges needed to be reformed. In addition, royal power was losing confidence in the eyes of the clergy, nobility and the bourgeoisie, among whom the idea was asserted that the power of the king was usurpation in relation to the rights of estates and corporations (Montesquieu's point of view) or in relation to the rights of the people (Rousseau's point of view). Thanks to the activities of the enlighteners, of whom the physiocrats and encyclopedists are especially important, a revolution took place in the minds of the educated part of French society. Finally, under Louis XV and even more so under Louis XVI, reforms were initiated in the political and economic fields, which inevitably had to lead to the collapse of the Old Order.
Historically, capitalist relations in England emerged earlier than in other countries. Industry was expanding and needed sources of raw materials, money and sales. The British bourgeoisie began an active struggle for the seizure of spheres of influence, for the seizure of colonies.
English colonial policy in the 17th and 18th centuries did not yet have such a scale as it acquired in the next century. Its purpose was to ensure the profit of a relatively few layers of the commercial bourgeoisie and the aristocratic elite of English society. Profit was achieved through an unequal exchange of goods between European businessmen and local residents of the colonies, the export of spices and valuable species of wood from Asia and Africa and their sale in Europe for high prices, as well as by direct robbery.
In England, special associations of the largest traders and industrialists were created. Their activities paved the way for the military and political establishment of England in various parts the globe.
With the help of such monopoly private enterprises, the British state penetrated Asia, America, Africa.
England took possession of numerous islands in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, secured important strongholds on the sea shores.
Thus, a huge chain of military and naval bases and strongholds was created, with which the British Empire subsequently encircled almost the entire world. This was how the bridgeheads were being prepared for a broad economic and military-political penetration into the depths of the Afro-Asian and American countries and the enslavement of the inhabiting peoples. The Industrial Revolution and the associated sharp expansion of the output of factory products caused a change in the views of the British ruling circles on the goals of colonial policy. The countries of the East began to acquire more and more importance not only as sources of income in the form of military booty and taxes, but mainly as profitable markets for British goods. "Colonies began to serve as a source of cheap raw materials ..."
In the second quarter of the 19th century, colonial expansion began to acquire special significance for England.
The military-political activity of the British Empire in the south of the mainland manifested itself in parallel with the expansionist activities of the British in other areas.
As a result of the aggressive actions of the colonialists, mainly British, the preconditions for the division of African lands between the capitalist powers and the enslavement of almost all the peoples living here were laid already in the first half of the 19th century.
By the end of 19, England had become the largest colonial power. "From 1884-1900. England acquired 3,700,000 square miles of new colonial territories. " Her possessions were located on all continents. The British ruling circles subordinated to their dominion a number of countries and peoples of Asia and Africa, primarily India, imposed onerous treaties and agreements on China, Iran and other states, created a system of military-strategic bases and communication lines on the islands and coasts of the Atlantic and Indian oceans as well as the Mediterranean Sea.
In the last third of the 19th century, in the advanced countries of Europe and in the United States, capitalism entered its last stage, the imperialist stage. During this period, the colonial policy of the British bourgeoisie became especially active. Colonial possessions at this stage in the development of capitalism were of interest to the metropolises not only as sources of raw materials and markets for goods, but also as a sphere of capital investment, exploitation of cheap work force... "The era of industrial capital has given way to the era of finance capital."
Along with the ever-increasing importance of the economic exploitation of colonial and semi-colonial possessions, the dependent territories scattered in different parts of the globe continued to play the role of important military-political bridgeheads, as well as a source of replenishment for the so-called colored troops.
At the end of the 19th century, the British bourgeoisie developed a vigorous activity to expand its colonial empire, to spread and strengthen its influence in the East.
In the 70-80s, 19 in the colonial expansion of England acquired a particularly large scale in Africa and the Middle East.
Colonial policy of England during the period of imperialism
The British Empire entered the First World War in full force. This war also marked the beginning of the crisis in the British Empire. Previously growing centrifugal forces burst out. During the First World War, there were uprisings in the Union of South Africa and Ireland, contradictions in Canada and Australia, and a widespread national liberation movement in India. The position of England in the capitalist world was weakening, while the balance of power between England and the dominions changed in favor of the latter. Thus, the foundations of a single foreign and military policy were undermined.
The new balance of power within the British Empire, which developed after the First World War, was reflected in the new Statute of the Dominions. The question of drafting such a statute arose already at the first post-war conferences. The Balfour report confirmed the right of each dominion, established in 1923, to independent foreign relations, to participate in international conferences, and stipulated that the dominions, concluding treaties with foreign states, should take into account the possible consequences for other parts of the empire.
The term "British Commonwealth of Nations" was first used in 1926 to refer to England and the self-governing dominions. The very term "empire" was abolished and replaced by the word "commonwealth". The use of the term "commonwealth" has made the political situation less difficult. "
Before World War II, the British Empire meant the unification of England with the dominions and colonies, and the Commonwealth meant England with the dominions. According to the Westminster Statute, the dominions became almost full-fledged subjects of international relations with the rights of independent diplomatic representation, concluding treaties with foreign states, with their own armed forces, with the right to declare or not declare war. The colonies continued to be disenfranchised objects of British politics. The Dominions took part in the redistribution of the German colonies after the First World War. Thus, "the first world war 1914-1918 led to the acquisition of another one and a half million square miles."
At the same time, the contradictions between Britain and the Dominions manifested themselves with increasing force on the basis of the development of independent local-imperialist aspirations of the Dominions, on the basis of the general crisis of imperialist policy in the period between the two wars. England took steps to strengthen the unity of the empire.
In economic terms, this goal was served by the system of imperial preferences established at the Ottawa Conference in 1932 and the creation of the sterling zone in the 1930s, which contributed to the development of intra-imperial ties, the growth of trade and investment.
At the first stage of the general crisis of capitalism in the empire, centrifugal forces were already making themselves felt. Ireland freed itself from British rule and renounced the military obligations imposed on it. The Indian subcontinent shook under the powerful blows of the national liberation movement. “Mass political actions of industrial workers and peasants were noted in 1918-22 in many regions of India. The Anglo-Indian government responded to these actions with brutal repressions. " The "British Middle Eastern Empire" created by the First World War began to crack. “In 1919, as a result of the Anglo-Afghan war, Afghanistan achieved the elimination of unequal treaties imposed by Britain, becoming a sovereign state. Turkey's political independence was secured by the abolition of all legal and economic privileges granted to the foreign Turkish sultan. England had to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, Turkey, Iran. "
These revolutionary, destructive processes for the British Empire were fully developed during and as a result of the Second World War, at a new stage in the general crisis of capitalism. At the first stage of the general crisis of capitalism, the British Empire expanded greatly at the expense of the German colonies and parts of the disintegrated Ottoman Empire. “By the end of the First World War, the British Empire was at the height of its power. A dangerous enemy - Germany - was defeated, and its colonial possessions were divided between the Entente powers. England received under this section in direct possession under the cover of the League of Nations mandate South-West Africa, part of Cameroon and Togo, Tanganyika and a number of islands in Oceania. " Thus, "on the eve of World War II, the British Empire with protectorates and dependent territories occupied an area equal to a quarter of the entire surface of the globe, with a population of ¼ of the world's population."
The emergence and development of the British colonial empire
The lack of control and arbitrariness of shareholders forced the English parliament in 1773 to issue an act "On the rules for better management of the East India Trading Company", according to which the governor of Bengal was appointed governor-general of all English possessions, the governors of Madras and Bombay were placed under him; under the governor, a Council of four persons uninterested in the affairs of the company was created. In 1784 the company was subordinated to a Board of Control of six members appointed by the king (its chairman was part of the British government).
During the first half of the XIX v. all 600 Indian principalities were subordinated to the crown. The provinces were ruled by governors, and the principalities were formally ruled by local princes (rajahs).
The resistance of the Indians (the sepoy revolt) and the atrocities of the East India Company led in 1858 to a radical change in the system of government, which was transferred directly to the crown. To this end, the British government introduced the post of Secretary of State, who headed the Council for Indian Affairs. The East India Trading Company was abolished. The Governor-General became known as the Viceroy of India and actually ruled over the entire country. Under him, a Supreme (executive) council was created, which was engaged in the publication of laws.
British colonial empire in the late 19th - early 20th centuries
V late XIX v. there was a significant expansion of colonial possessions: in Africa - Rhodesia, Sudan, Nigeria, Ghana (formerly the Gold Coast), Somalia, Kenya, etc .; in Asia - Burma, about. Cyprus. Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt were in a state of semi-colonies. Dominion status was received by Australia, the Union of South Africa, and New Zealand.
Australia until 1900 consisted of several independent self-governing colonies of Great Britain. In 1900, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia was adopted, which consolidated Australia's status as a federal state with its own parliament convened and dissolved by the British Governor-General.
The Union of South Africa emerged in 1909 as a result of the Boer Wars.
In 1907 formed British Commonwealth nations. By the beginning of the twentieth century. England - a country of 40 million people - dominated an empire of about 450 million people.
The collapse of the British colonial empire and the formation of independent states
- early dissolution of the People's Chamber of Parliament;
- imposing "veto" on laws passed by him and passing laws during his holidays;
- suspension of the Constitution, etc.
However, despite the rather extensive powers of the president, in fact, the policy of India is determined by the prime minister, who forms a government that is responsible to parliament.
The National Assembly (four years) was empowered to elect and remove the Standing Committee and the President of the Republic.
The Standing Committee, along with the issuance and interpretation of laws and decrees, monitored the activities of the Government Council, the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme Chamber of People's Control.
The President of the Republic acted only in accordance with the decisions of the Parliament or its Standing Committee.
However, the sudden death of the President of the Republic, Nasser in 1970, led to a sharp change in the course of state-building with a focus on the West (President Anwar Sadat).
Since September 1971, the country is officially called the Arab Republic of Egypt. The 1971 Constitution proclaimed the country "a state with a socialist democratic system based on the alliance of the forces of the working people." Despite this statement, Egypt immediately and confidently headed for the capitalist path of development.
The supreme body of state power is the National Assembly, the head of state is the president.
Palestine
Territory of Palestine before the beginning of the XX century was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, and then until 1948 was an English colony. In 1949, according to a UN decision, the territory of Palestine was divided into Palestine proper and Israel. Military conflicts began almost immediately, and it took several decades to recognize the status of sovereign states in 1988, but territorial issues have not been removed so far.
Algerian People's Democratic Republic
In ancient times, Algeria (Numidia) was an outpost of Carthage. At the end of the II century. was annexed to Rome, from the end of the 7th century. - To The Arab Caliphate, from the 15th century. - to the Ottoman Empire. In the 1830s. French expansion began, which culminated in the declaration in 1848 of Algeria as a French territory headed by a governor-general.
Under the French Organic Statute of 1947, Algeria was declared a group of departments with their own citizenship and financial autonomy, which led to an exacerbation of an ongoing unrest. In May 1958, representatives of the French military administration, fearing radical changes in colonial policy, including with respect to Algeria, raised a mutiny that eventually led to power
