Das „British Commonwealth of Nations“

  • Rudolf von Albertini
Part of the Beiträge zur Kolonial- und Überseegeschichte book series (BKÜ, volume 1)

Zusammenfassung

Der Umbau des Empire zum Commonwealth während und nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg, eine der großen politischen Leistungen Großbritanniens, muß als Abschluß eines Dekolonisationsprozesses verstanden werden. Es geht um eine Neukonstituierung der Beziehungen zwischen Kolonien, die seit langem auf Eigenstaatlichkeit, Nationwerdung und weitgehende Unabhängigkeit drängen, und dem Mutterland, das sich als Empire fühlt und den umfassenden Reichsverband zu erhalten versucht; dabei gelingt es, eine Formel zu finden, die divergierende Interessen berücksichtigt und beide Partner zu befriedigen vermag.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. 48.
    Halperin, Lord Milner, p. 189 f.Google Scholar
  2. 44.
    Zit. Butler, Lord Lothian, p. 40, Anm.Google Scholar
  3. 45.
    Darüber Butler, a.a.O., Kap. III. Kerr z. B. meint, daß Curtis’ Organic union Kanada zur Ablösung treiben werde, Brief Nov. 1909, p. 39. Carroll Quigley, The Round Table groups in Canada, 1908–1938, in: The Canadian Historical Review, Sept. 1962.Google Scholar
  4. 46.
    J. D. B. Miller, Richard Jebb and the problem of Empire, 1956.Google Scholar
  5. 47.
    W. K. Hancock, Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs, vol. I, 1937, p. 41.Google Scholar
  6. 48.
    Selected Speeches and Documents on British Colonial Policy 1763–1917, ed. A. B. Keith, Ausgabe 1953, p. 247 ff.Google Scholar
  7. 49.
    A.a.O., p. 358.Google Scholar
  8. 50.
    The Dominions and the settlement, in: Round Table, 5/325.Google Scholar
  9. 51.
    Hans E. Bärtschi, Die Entwicklung vom imperialistischen Reichsgedanken zur modernen Idee des Commonwealth im Lebenswerk Lord Balfours, 1957, p. 135.Google Scholar
  10. 52.
    “It will then be plain that the liberties which have been saved cannot be secured for the future, unless the burden involved is recognized as a first charge on the revenues, not of one, but of all the free communities of the Commonwealth in peace as well as in war.” The problem of the Commonwealth, 1916, p. 7.Google Scholar
  11. 53.
    Hancocky a.a.O., I, p. 52 f. S.A.de Smith, The Vocabulary of Commonwealth Relations, 1954.Google Scholar
  12. 53a.
    Nicholas Mansergh, The Name and Nature of the British Commonwealth, 1955. Alfred Zimmern hatte zudem 1911 ein berühmtes Werk »The Greek Commonwealth« veröffentlicht.Google Scholar
  13. 54.
    Earl of Cromer, Imperial Federation, in: Cromer, Haidane, Marshall u. a., After-War Problems, ed. W. H. Dawson, 1917.Google Scholar
  14. 55.
    “The growing necessity of Constitutional Reform”, in: Round Table, 7. 12. 1916.Google Scholar
  15. 56.
    Bärtschi, a.a.O., p. 137.Google Scholar
  16. 57.
    The Organisation of the Empire, a suggestion, in: The Nineteenth Century, März 1917.Google Scholar
  17. 58.
    John Bowie, Viscount Samuel, a biography, 1957, p. 153.Google Scholar
  18. 59.
    Bärtschi, Viscount Samuel, a biography, 1957, p. 140.Google Scholar
  19. 60.
    Round Table Dez. 1920, p. 12, Anm. 2., distanziert sich ausdrücklich von Curtis. Google Scholar
  20. 61.
    Imperial Unity and the Dominions, 1916. Letters on Imperial Relations, 1935.Google Scholar
  21. 62.
    Imperial Unity, p. 7.Google Scholar
  22. 63.
    A.a.O., p. 24.Google Scholar
  23. 64.
    A.a.O., p. 25.Google Scholar
  24. 65.
    A.a.O., p. 510.Google Scholar
  25. 66.
    Selected Speeches and Documents, p. 376.Google Scholar
  26. 67.
    A.a.O., p. 379.Google Scholar
  27. 68.
    A.a.O., p. 391.Google Scholar
  28. 69.
    A.a.O., p. 397.Google Scholar
  29. 70.
    “We are not a State but a community of States and nations. We are far greater than any Empire which has ever existed, and by using this ancient expression we really disguise the main fact that our whole position is different, and that we are not one State or nation or Empire, but a whole world by ourselves, consisting of many nations, of many States, and all sorts of communities, under one flag... We are a system of States and not a stationary but a dynamic and evolving system, always going forward to new destinies.” Rede vor dem britischen Parlament vom 15. 5. 1917, zit. W. K. Hancock, Smuts. The sanguine years, vol. I 1870–1919, 1962, p. 431.Google Scholar
  30. 71.
    Patrick Gordon-Walker, The Commonwealth, 1962, p. 98.Google Scholar
  31. 72.
    R. MacGregor Dawson, The development of Dominion Status 1900–1936, 1937.Google Scholar
  32. 72a.
    E. A. Walker, The British Empire, its structure and spirit, 2. ed. 1953, p. 150 f.Google Scholar
  33. 72b.
    Gordon-Walker, The British Empire, its structure and spirit, 2. ed. 1953, p. 98 f. Speeches and Documents on the British Dominions 1918–1931, ed. A. B. Keith, 1932.Google Scholar
  34. 73.
    J. D. B. Miller, The Commonwealth in the world, 1958, p. 42.Google Scholar
  35. 74.
    E. A. Walker, The Commonwealth in the world, 1958, p. 152.Google Scholar
  36. 75.
    Speeches and Documents on the British Dominions 1918–31, p. 161 f. H. Duncan Hall, The genesis of the Balfour declaration of 1926, in: Journal of Commonwealth Studies, 1962, I, 3. Hall zeigt u. a., wie Memoranden von Smuts und L. S. Amery die Formel von 1926 vorbereitet haben und wie Hertzog schließlich noch Konzessionen macht, u. a. auf das Wort »Independence« verzichtet, weil Mackenzie King (Kanada) dies nur als Sezession verstehen kann. Über Balfour außerdem Bärtschi, a.a.O.Google Scholar
  37. 76.
    Premierminister Baldwin nannte die Krone »The last link of Empire that is left«, zit. N. Mansergh, The Commonwealth at the Queen’s accession, in: Internationl Affairs, Juli 1953, p. 279.Google Scholar
  38. 77.
    Als Beispiel diene Lord Lloyd, Vorsitzender der Navy League und einer Empire Economic Union, der in einem Interview mit einer australischen Zeitung erklärte: “The United States of America, following a policy of mutual economic co-operation over a vast and rich territory, have built up a position as the dominating power in the economic world. In Europe, farseeing men realise that the day of small economic units is passing away, and our former allies and enemies are being forced to consider some sort of closer economic union for a continent. In the coming realignment of world economic forces the nations of the Empire cannot afford to remain isolated economic units. They will be compelled, unless they are to fall behind in the whole progress of world-development to combine to make the Empire one economic unit. I do not admit that the problem is one incapable of solution. The British Empire, so largely peopled by men of common origin and common tradition, naturally dependent on one another for food, raw materials, and manufactured good, should be able to find ways and means for promoting the greater interchange of their products. This is surely within the capacity of men of knowledge, ability, and goodwill, meeting in conference together.” Zit. Colin Forbes Adam, Life of Lord Lloyd, 1948, p. 247. Ähnlich auch Robert Hadfield, Economic organisation and development of Empire, in: Contemporary Review, Nov. 1929, p. 575;Google Scholar
  39. 77a.
    Robert Stokes, New Imperial Ideals, 1930, p. 49.Google Scholar
  40. 77b.
    L. S. Amery, The Empire in the new Era, 1948, p. 10: “We are face to face with the gradual emergence of a new type of greater unity, economic and political, in the world’s affairs.”Google Scholar
  41. 78.
    Außer einer Reihe von Aufsätzen in der Round Table z. B. auch Viscount Sandon, The problem of the British Empire, in: Nineteenth Century, Oktober 1920.Google Scholar
  42. 79.
    House of Commons, vol. 259, p. 1188 f.Google Scholar
  43. 80.
    “The League of Nations is the deus ex machina of the British Commonwealth. That Commonwealth, if it is to survive, must survive as a League within the larger League, a society within that larger society.” Third British Empire, p. 71. Irland habe sich britischen Sanktionen 1935 gegen Italien angeschlossen, nicht in Unterstützung Großbritanniens, sondern als Verpflichtung gegenüber dem Völkerbund. Lord Elton, Imperial Commonwealth, 1945, p. 488.Google Scholar
  44. 81.
    Vgl. p. 55.Google Scholar
  45. 82.
    U. a. My political life, vol. II, p. 163 f. »easy pretext... to shirk its real responsibilities for common defence«, Edward Grigg, The faith of an Englishman, 1936, p. 326.Google Scholar
  46. 83.
    Amerys Tagebuch-Kommentar: “It is true it leaves the way equally clear to dissolution. That is a risk we have got to run, and if the will to unity is there we shall overcome it.” My political life, vol. II, p. 394. Über Amery W. F. Gutteridge, L. S. Amery and the Commonwealth, in: Political Science (Neuseeland) 8/1956, 2. Kerrs Haltung bei Butler, Lord Lothian, p. 108.Google Scholar
  47. 84.
    Empire in the New Era, 1928, p. 2.Google Scholar
  48. 85.
    Ernest Barker, Ideen und Ideale des britischen Weltreiches, dt. Ausg. 1941, p. 80.Google Scholar
  49. 86.
    2. B. Balfour-Declaration: “They (die Dominions) are autonomous Communities within the British Empire.”Google Scholar
  50. 87.
    “... we have since (1926) tended to use Commonwealth for the whole, whenever the emphasis has been on the steady extension of self-government, and Empire when emphasizing its complex variety or the great tradition of the past.” Amery, My political life, vol. II, p. 389 f.Google Scholar
  51. 88.
    “The creation of that Commonwealth of many nations, many races, and many colours, of which we have dreamed.” Harvest of Victory, Round Table, Sept. 1919, p. 668.Google Scholar
  52. 89.
    “Extension ultimately to the rest of the Empire with its 370 millions of coloured peoples ... will gradually assimilate the position of the dependencies to that of the United Kingdom and of the Dominions.” The Government of the British Commonwealth of Nations, 1921, p. 10.Google Scholar
  53. 90.
    J.Coatman, Magna Britannia, 1936, p. 62.Google Scholar
  54. 91.
    The Letters of T. E. Lawrence, ed. D. Garnett, 1938, p. 308, Großbritannien möge seine Truppen aus dem Irak zurückziehen und die Verwaltung den Arabern übergeben: “We should hold of Mesopotamia exactly as much (or as little) as we hold of South Africa or Canada. I believe the Arabs in these conditions would be as loyal as anyone in the Empire, and they would not cost us a cent.” 1928 orientierte sich Lawrence allerdings an bilateralen Verträgen, die Großbritannien eine privilegierte Position in der Verteidigung einräumen würden; p. 578.Google Scholar
  55. 92.
    Empire in these days, 1935, p. 179.Google Scholar
  56. 93.
    Amery berichtet, wie bei der Abfassung der Balfour-Declaration eine Abgrenzung von Dominions zum restlichen Empire bewußt angestrebt und an eine schrittweise Ausweitung nicht gedacht worden ist. My political life, vol. II, p. 389. Dazu auch N. Mansergh, Name and Nature, p. 5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 1966

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rudolf von Albertini

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations