The Empire and the Peace

  • Max Beloff
Chapter

Abstract

The armistices that brought the great war to an end did not and could not bring about the peace that was so generally desired. It was not even the case that all hostilities had ceased. The Russian civil war, merging as it did into wars between the new soviet regime and parts of what had formerly been the Russian empire; the struggles between the newly emancipated countries of eastern Europe over boundary claims, the unreconciled conflict between Greek and Turk; the problem of the succession to Turkish rule in the Arab lands — all these were to be productive of continued armed struggles on a greater or lesser scale from which the world would not enjoy a general breathing space for another four years and more. In some of these struggles Britain was directly involved, as in the intervention in Russia that had begun on several fronts in 1918. From none could she afford to be aloof, since no country had a greater interest in a restoration of general tranquillity and a resumption of ordered economic intercourse. But Britain had even more immediate concerns. In Ireland the end of the war released the final surge of nationalism, leading first to armed repression by the government and then, after the signature of the treaty establishing the Irish Free State in a partitioned island, to further fighting between those who had accepted the settlement and the bitter-enders. In India the new phase in opposition political activity was also accompanied by acts of violence, and although in the end relative calm was restored and some constitutional advance made, the effect of the turmoil was disheartening to all protagonists of an agreed and peaceful evolution. In Egypt likewise, a nationalist challenge had to be faced.

Keywords

Prime Minister British Government Peace Treaty British Opinion Soviet Government 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    On the election of 1918, see Wilson, The Downfall of the Liberal Party, part II: ‘The Coupon Election’.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See for the development of British opinion on the peace settlement, R. B. McCallum, Public Opinion and the Last Peace (1944).Google Scholar
  3. 1.
    For Keynes’s scheme, see J. M. Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (published December 1919), pp. 270–7.Google Scholar
  4. There is much valuable material on this aspect of British war aims and on exile propaganda in England in Henry Hanak, Great Britain and Austria-Hungary during the First World War (1962).Google Scholar
  5. 1.
    See also F. W. Hirst, The Consequences of the War to Great Britain (1934).Google Scholar
  6. 2.
    See, e.g., Harold Nicolson, Peacemaking 1919 (1933);Google Scholar
  7. Lord Riddell, Intimate Diary of the Peace Conference and After (1933);Google Scholar
  8. Stephen Bonsai, Unfinished Business (1944).Google Scholar
  9. The most revealing picture of the ‘Big Four’ in action is that contained in the notes of their interpreter, Paul Mantoux, Les Deliberations du Conseil des Quatre (2v) (Paris, 1955; English edition of vol. 1, Geneva, 1964).Google Scholar
  10. For the formal layout and timetable of the Conference, see F. A. Marston, The Peace Conference of 1919: Organisation and Procedure (1944).Google Scholar
  11. 3.
    A. Farmer Whyte, William Morris Hughes (Sydney, 1957), p. 379.Google Scholar
  12. 5.
    On Canada’s position, see G. P. de T. Glazebrook, Canada at the Paris Peace Conference (1942), pp. 22–42.Google Scholar
  13. 1.
    M. G. Fry, ‘The Imperial War Cabinet, the United States, and the Freedom of the Seas’, R.U.S.I Journal, vol. 110, (1965).Google Scholar
  14. 3.
    For the evolution of the guarantee treaties, see Hankey, The Supreme Control at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 (1963), pp. 100, 102, 144–5, 173, 186–7.Google Scholar
  15. 3.
    A. J. Toynbee, The Conduct of British Empire Foreign Relations since the Peace Settlement (1928), PP. 52–3.Google Scholar
  16. 4.
    W. K. Hancock, Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs, vol. 1 (1937), pp. 307–8.Google Scholar
  17. 5.
    James Eayrs, In Defence of Canada, vol. 1 (Toronto, 1964), introduction.Google Scholar
  18. 3.
    This point is illustrated in detail by H. Duncan Hall in ‘The British Commonwealth and the founding of the League of Nations Mandate System’, in K. Bourne and D. C. Watt (eds), Studies in International History (1967).Google Scholar
  19. 2.
    It is well reflected in fiction in Pierre Benoit, La Chatelaine du Liban (Paris, 1924).Google Scholar
  20. 3.
    Kedourie, England and the Middle East (1956), pp. 131, 144.Google Scholar
  21. 2.
    Ben Halpern, The Idea of the Jewish State (Harvard U.P., 1961), pp. 301–22;Google Scholar
  22. Jon Kimche, The Unromantics (London, 1968), pp. 42 ff.Google Scholar
  23. 1.
    R. H. Brand (ed.), Letters of John Dove (1938), p. 156.Google Scholar
  24. 1.
    Lord Kinross, Ataturk (1964), pp. 346 ff.Google Scholar
  25. 3.
    E. M. Forster’s A Passage to India (1925) is only the most famous of literary treatments of the problem of personal relations between the British and Indian peoples.Google Scholar
  26. 1.
    P. Mantoux (ed.), Les Deliberations du Conseil des Quatre (Paris 1955), vol. 2, pp. 98–9.Google Scholar
  27. 3.
    P. Woodruff, The Men Who Ruled India, vol. 2 (edn, 1963), pp. 254–6.Google Scholar
  28. 5.
    For soviet activity in Asia at this time, see E. H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917–1923, 1–3 (1953), pp.229 ff.Google Scholar
  29. 2.
    Sir Nandan Prasad, Expansion of the Armed Forces and Defence Organisation, 1939–1945 (Official History of the Indian Armed Forces in the Second World War, ed. Bisheshswar Prasad) (Calcutta, 1956), p. 8.Google Scholar
  30. 1.
    See on this whole subject the fully documented analysis in Georges Fischer, Le Parti Travailliste et la Décolonization de l’Inde (Paris, François Maspero, 1966).Google Scholar
  31. 2.
    K. C. Wheare, The Constitutional Structure of the Commonwealth (Oxford, 1960), pp. 10 ff.Google Scholar
  32. For the negotiation of the Irish Treaty itself, see the account in F. Pakenham (the Earl of Longford), Peace by Ordeal (1935).Google Scholar
  33. 2.
    H. A. L. Fisher, James Bryce (1927), vol. 2, pp. 256–8.Google Scholar
  34. 2.
    For Smuts’s role in helping to bring about negotiations in 1921, see Hancock, Smuts (Cambridge, 1968), vol. 2, pp. 49–59.Google Scholar
  35. 5.
    W. S. Churchill, The Aftermath (1929), chs. XIV–XVI.Google Scholar
  36. 6.
    B. B. Schofield, British Sea Power (1967), pp. 80 ff.Google Scholar
  37. 1.
    See M. Gilbert, The Roots of Appeasement (1966), chs. VII, VIII. Northedge, op. cit., ch. VII.Google Scholar
  38. 3.
    Cf. R. B. McCallum, Public Opinion and the Last Peace (1944);Google Scholar
  39. E. Mantoux, The Carthaginian Peace (1946).Google Scholar
  40. 4.
    See C. A. Cline, Recruits to Labour: The British Labour Party, 1914–1931 (Syracuse University Press, 1963), pp. 78–9.Google Scholar
  41. 2.
    Randolph Churchill, Lord Derby (1959), pp. 385, 397–8.Google Scholar
  42. 1.
    See on the general western attitudes to the soviet régime, George Kennan, Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalin (Boston, 1960);Google Scholar
  43. Max Beloff, ‘L’URSS et l’Europe’, in M. Beloff, P. Renouvin, F. Schnabel, and F. Valsecchi (eds), L’Europe du XIX et XX Siècle (Milan, 1964), vol. III.Google Scholar
  44. 3.
    For the later story, see R. H. Ullman, Britain and the Russian Civil War (Princeton, 1968) and Roskill, op. cit. Chap. III.Google Scholar
  45. 1.
    A. Link, President Wilson and His English Critics (Oxford, 1959).Google Scholar
  46. 2.
    N. J. Spykman, America’s Strategy in World Politics (New York, 1942), p. 169.Google Scholar
  47. 3.
    P. Goodhart, Fifty Ships that Saved the World (1965), p. 65.Google Scholar
  48. 4.
    A. A. Ekirch, jnr., ‘The Popular Desire for Peace as a Factor in Military Policy’, in H. L. Coles (ed.), Total War and Cold War (Ohio State University Press, 1962).Google Scholar
  49. 5.
    The problem is fully treated from the American side in H. and M. Sprout, Towards a New Order of Sea Power (Princeton University Press; 2nd edn, 1945), pp. 55 ff., and from the British side in Roskill, op. cit.Google Scholar
  50. 6.
    The brief account of the naval crisis in H. C. Allen, Great Britain and the United States (1954), pp. 700–5, minimizes the importance of the issues involved to the future of Britain’s world position.Google Scholar
  51. 2.
    C. Seymour, The Intimate Papers of Colonel House (1928), vol. IV, pp. 431–9.Google Scholar
  52. 6.
    B. B. Schofield, British Sea Power (1967), pp. 72–4.Google Scholar
  53. 1.
    S. Woodburn Kirby, The War Against Japan (H.M.S.O., 1957), vol. 1, pp. 2–3.Google Scholar
  54. 2.
    See especially, J. B. Brebner, ‘Canada, The Anglo-Japanese Alliance and the Washington Conference’, Political Science Quarterly, vol. L (March 1935);Google Scholar
  55. J. S. Galbraith, ‘The Imperial Conference of 1921 and the Washington Conference’, Canadian Historical Review, vol. XXIX (June 1948);Google Scholar
  56. M. Tate and F. Foy, ‘More Light on the Abrogation of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance’, Political Quarterly, vol. LXXIV (December 1959);Google Scholar
  57. J. C. Vinson, ‘The Imperial Conference of 1921 and the Anglo-Japanese Alliance’, Pacific Historical Review, vol. XXXI (August 1962).Google Scholar
  58. 4.
    I. H. Nish, ‘Japan and the Ending of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance’, in K. Bourne and D. C. Watt (eds), Studies in International History (1967), pp. 376–7.Google Scholar
  59. 7.
    The memorandum dated I February 1921 is printed in A. R. M. Lower, ‘Loring Christie and the Genesis of the Washington Conference of 1921–2’, Canadian Historical Review, vol. XLVII (1966).Google Scholar
  60. 3.
    M. G. Fry, ‘Anglo-American Canadian Relations with Special Reference to Far Eastern and Naval Issues, 1918–1922’, Bull. Inst. Hist. Research, vol. XXXIX (1966).Google Scholar
  61. 6.
    Sir Auckland Geddes (1879–1952) (first baron, 1942) held a number of ministerial posts between 1917 and 1920. He was ambassador to the United States March 1920–February 1924. For previous American representations about the Alliance, see U.S. Foreign Relations, 1920, vol. 2 (1936), pp. 679–85.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Max Beloff 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Max Beloff
    • 1
  1. 1.University of OxfordUK

Personalised recommendations