The collapse of the British colonial empire. The collapse of the British Empire

Despite the stubborn opposition of the mother country, in the countries of the British Empire (especially in the settler colonies and India), industry developed, a national bourgeoisie and the proletariat took shape, which became an increasingly serious force in political life. The Russian Revolution of 1905-07 had a great influence on the development of the national liberation movement in the British Empire. The Indian National Congress in 1906 put forward the demand for self-government for India. However, the British authorities brutally suppressed anti-colonial protests.

In the first decades of the 20th century, the dominions of the Commonwealth of Australia (1901), New Zealand (1907), the Union of South Africa (1910), and Newfoundland (1917) were formed. Dominion governments began to be involved in the discussion of foreign policy and defense of the British Empire at imperial conferences. The capitalists of the dominions, together with the English capitalists, participated in the exploitation of the colonial part of the British Empire.

At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. Anglo-German imperialist contradictions (including their colonial and maritime rivalry), which played a major role in the outbreak of World War I of 1914-18, acquired special significance. The entry of Great Britain into the war automatically entailed the participation of the dominions in it. The dominance of Great Britain actually extended also to Egypt (sq. 995 thousand b. 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 people.

The world war disrupted the established economic ties in the British Empire. This contributed to the accelerated economic development of the 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 Commonwealth of Australia (part of New Guinea and the adjacent islands of Oceania), New Zealand (the West Samoa). British imperialism expanded its positions in the region of the Near and Middle East. Many states of 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 and 1928-33 there were mass 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 the Dominion of Ireland (without the northern part - Ulster, which remained part of Great Britain); in 1949 Ireland was proclaimed an independent republic. In 1922 Great Britain formally recognized the independence of Egypt. In 1930, the British mandate over Iraq was terminated. However, enslaving "alliance treaties" were imposed on Egypt and Iraq, which in fact preserved British dominance.

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 foreign and domestic policy. But in economic terms, the dominions (except for Canada, which became increasingly dependent on the United States) to a large extent remained agro-raw material appendages of the metropolis. The countries of the British Empire (except Canada) were included in the sterling bloc created by Great Britain in 1931. In 1932, the Ottawa Accords were concluded, which established a system of imperial preferences (preferred duties on trade between countries and territories of the British Empire). This testified to the presence of still strong ties between the mother country and the dominions. Despite the recognition of the independence of the dominions, the mother country 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 control of British and American monopolies, was deprived of its dominion status and came under the control of a British governor. World economic crisis of 1929-33 significantly exacerbated the contradictions within the British Empire. American, Japanese and German capital penetrated the countries of the British Empire. However, English capital retained its dominant position in the empire. In 1938, about 55% of the total amount of British investments abroad was in the countries of the British Empire (1945 million pounds st. out of 3545 million pounds st.). Great Britain occupied the main place in their foreign trade.

All countries of the British Empire were covered by a single system of "imperial defense", the components of which were military bases at strategically important points (Gibraltar, Malta, Suez, Aden, Singapore, etc.). British imperialism used bases to fight for the expansion of its influence in the countries of Asia and Africa, against the national liberation movement of the oppressed peoples.

At the very beginning of the 2nd World War 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 mother country, then Ireland (Eire) declared its neutrality. During the years of the war, which revealed the weakness of British imperialism, the crisis of the British Empire sharply worsened. As a result of a series of heavy defeats suffered in the war with Japan, the position of Great Britain was undermined in Southeast Asia. A broad anti-colonial movement unfolded in the countries of the British Empire.

The results of World War II, which ended in the complete defeat of the bloc of fascist states, the formation of the world socialist system and the general weakening of the positions of imperialism created exceptionally favorable conditions for the struggle of the colonial peoples for their liberation and for the defense of their independence. The process of disintegration of the colonial system of imperialism unfolded, an integral 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); the country was divided along religious lines into India (a dominion since 1947, a republic since 1950) and Pakistan (a dominion since 1947, a republic since 1956). Burma and Ceylon also embarked on an independent path of development (1948). In 1947, the UN General Assembly decided to abolish (from May 15, 1948) the British Mandate for Palestine and to create two independent states (Arab and Jewish) on its territory. In an attempt to stop the peoples' struggle 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 liberated from British colonial rule: in 1956 - Sudan; in 1957 - Ghana (the former British colony of the 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 in 1965 withdrew from the Federation); in 1960 - Somalia (the former British colony of Somaliland and the former UN Trust Territory of Somalia, which was administered by Italy), Cyprus, Nigeria (in 1961, the northern part of the UN Trust Territory of Cameroon British became part of the Federation of Nigeria; the southern part of British Cameroon, united with the Republic 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 (former Nyasaland), Malta, Zambia (former Northern Rhodesia); in 1965 - Gambia, Maldives; in 1966 - Guyana (formerly British Guiana), Botswana (formerly Bechuanaland), Lesotho (formerly Basutoland), Barbados; in 1967 - the former Aden (until 1970 - the People's Republic of South Yemen; since 1970 - the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen); in 1968 - Mauritius, Swaziland; in 1970 - Tonga, Fiji. The pro-British monarchist regimes in Egypt (1952) and Iraq (1958) were overthrown. The former New Zealand Trust Territory of Western Samoa (1962) and the former Australian, British and New Zealand Trust Territory of Nauru (1968) achieved independence. The "old dominions" - Canada (in 1949 Newfoundland became part of it), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa - finally turned into states politically independent of 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 of the 14th-16th 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 with all the means at its disposal. Another compromise existed in relation to the peasantry - during a long series of peasant wars of the XIV-XVI centuries. the peasants achieved the abolition of the vast majority of monetary taxes and the transition to natural 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 (peasantry) and supporting the existence of tens of thousands of small enterprises, the owners of which constituted a layer of French bourgeois). However, the regime that developed 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 from England. In addition, excessive exploitation increasingly armed against itself the masses of the people, whose most legitimate interests were completely ignored by the state.

Gradually during the XVIII century. at the top of French society, an understanding has matured that the Old Order, with its underdevelopment of market relations, chaos in the management system, corrupt system for the sale of public posts, lack of clear legislation, the “Byzantine” taxation system and the archaic system of class privileges, needs to be reformed. In addition, the royal power was losing confidence in the eyes of the clergy, the nobility and the bourgeoisie, among which the idea was asserted that the power of the king is a 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 to an even greater extent under Louis XVI, reforms were launched in the political and economic fields, which were bound to lead to the collapse of the Old Order.

The collapse of the British Empire began at the second stage of the general crisis. Already during the Second World War, the processes of the disintegration of the empire and the intensification of the national liberation struggle of the colonial peoples were sharply affected.

“After the Second World War, the general crisis of the capitalist system sharply worsened. A new stage has begun in its development. The liberation struggle of the peoples of the East assumed an unprecedented scope. The colonialists could no longer reign supreme in the countries of Asia and Africa, and the corrupted peoples no longer wanted to endure the violence of the invaders. The colonial system of imperialism has passed into the stage of disintegration.

This process also embraced the British colonial system of imperialism. A powerful upsurge of the national liberation movement began in it, which was the main and decisive factor in the aggravation of the crisis of this empire ... "

Exacerbation of the crisis of the British Empire during the Second World War

The defeats of England in the Far East and the occupation by the Japanese of most of the British colonies there greatly discredited British imperialism and colonialism in general in the eyes of the people and gave them new political, moral and material means of struggle. "England was unable to protect its possessions in Southeast Asia - Burma, Malaya, Sarawak, North Borneo" from Japanese occupation.

The collapse of the British Empire began in South and Southeast Asia. Under the blows of the national liberation movement and in the midst of a new balance of forces, British imperialism was compelled in 1947 to grant independence to India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Burma. At the same time, the collapse of the "British Middle Eastern Empire" began - a kind of complex of British colonies, mandated territories, spheres of influence, oil concessions, bases and communications in the vast area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean. “The course of historical development led the British Empire to disintegration. The beginning of this disintegration was laid in Asia. The English colonies in this part of the world were much more developed economically, politically and culturally than in Africa, and their peoples had a great deal of experience in the anti-imperialist struggle.

Fundamental political changes in the position of the former colonies created the prerequisites for breaking up the entire imperialist structure of the British Empire. The liberated colonies found the opportunity to put an end to the economic monopoly of the British monopolists. They began to develop economic relations with all countries. Thanks to this, the political independence of the former colonies turned out to be a more powerful means of the economic collapse of the British Empire than the British colonizers could have imagined.

Indian gain of independence

When the inevitability of granting political independence to India became obvious, the ruling circles of England directed their main attention to maintaining their economic positions in it. They sought to leave India in their dependence, mainly economic. The granting of independence to India was accompanied by political maneuvers that were supposed to provide the possibility of interfering in its internal affairs through the use of the old principle of "divide and rule". This method was used by the British imperialists in "granting" political independence to other colonies.

The conquest of the status of dominion by India actually marked the beginning of the disintegration of the British colonial empire. After India gained independence, it was no longer possible to maintain a colonial regime in other possessions.

By becoming a republic, India set an important precedent for other colonies fighting for their liberation. "The conquest of independence by India had a great influence on the development of the national liberation movement in its neighboring countries: Ceylon, Burma, Malaya."

After the liberation of India, Burma and Ceylon, political parties began to spring up everywhere in the rest of the colonies, putting forward a program of gaining independence for their country.

In the first half of the 1950s, British imperialism was dealt heavy blows by national liberation movements in those areas that were not part of the British Empire, but were important areas of its monopoly domination. To accelerate the collapse of the empire, this was no less important than the gain of political independence by the colonies that were part of it.

The collapse of colonial regimes in the Middle East and Africa

When it comes to the collapse of the British Empire, one cannot limit oneself to analyzing only those changes that have taken place in the fate of the countries that were part of it. At the same time, it must be taken into account that the most important economic and strategic bases of British imperialism were located outside its borders. Such bases were the Suez Canal and the Nile Valley, as well as the "Oil Empire" of the Middle East. The popular movement for the nationalization of the British oil monopoly in Iran, which developed with great force in 1951-53, was suppressed only by the joint efforts of the British and US imperialists.

Shortly after the events in Iran, the attention of the whole world was riveted on the national liberation movement in Egypt. “A powerful upsurge of the anti-imperialist movement engulfed the countries of the Arab East after the Second World War, and above all the largest of them, Egypt.” This created a direct threat that the British imperialists would lose monopoly control over the most important strategic communications in the Middle East.

After the nationalization of the Suez Canal by Egypt in 1956, England, together with France and Israel, launched an intervention against Egypt, which ended in failure. “The Suez adventure, in which the British imperialists played the main role, suffered a complete failure.” India, Pakistan and Ceylon opposed the intervention, and this threatened to split the Commonwealth.

The failure of the intervention in Egypt hastened the collapse of the British Empire. “It was a sign of the times, which testified to the collapse of the colonial policy of the British ruling circles in Egypt…”. Soon British imperialism was dealt a blow in West Africa. "The Anglo-French-Israeli aggression against Egypt in 1956 was perceived by the Afro-Asian countries as a challenge to the very existence of the Commonwealth." The first conference of the peoples of Africa met in Accra and put forward the demand for independence for all African colonies.

An important milestone in the collapse of the British Empire was the revolution in Iraq in July 1958. The Iraqi revolution at that time inflicted enormous damage on British imperialism and its military-strategic positions. The collapse of the British Empire in South and Southeast Asia and the Middle East was the result of the irresistible onslaught of the national liberation movement of peoples. The British ruling circles had no choice. And in a number of cases they have shown maneuverability. The Laborites understood that they could not resist the mighty tide of the liberation struggle by force, that such an attempt would only strengthen the consistent progressive elements of colonial society, and that, consequently, some kind of compromise had to be sought.

British imperialism displayed a certain flexibility in protecting itself from unnecessary "wounds". The maneuvering of British policy consists in saving what can still be saved, and in preserving the liberated countries not only in the system of the world capitalist economy, but also in the system of international politics of modern capitalism.

The Suez crisis, which shook the whole structure of the British Commonwealth to its foundations, exposed not only the abyss, but also deep cracks in the relations between England and the old dominions. These disagreements have had an effect, to one degree or another, on all the fundamental questions of the foreign policy of England and the Commonwealth, in particular on the question of the aggressive military pacts in which England participates. "The Suez crisis finally showed the unfulfillment of the hopes of the British colonialists and forced the government to start a radical revision of its foreign policy concepts regarding the countries of the" third world "."

The turbulent process of the liberation of the colonies unfolded in 1960, which went down in history as the "year of Africa", because. during this year, 17 colonial countries of this continent achieved independence. "The struggle for independence embraces broad circles of the peoples of Africa, that Africa which bourgeois publicists until recently called the "last hope" of the capitalist world."

By the end of 1963, the British Empire as a political system of domination over the peoples actually ceased to exist. Almost all former colonies, with the exception of a few protectorates in Africa and small island possessions, have achieved political independence. But political independence has not yet completely freed the former colonies from the yoke of the British monopolies.

The British imperialists, having suffered a defeat in the struggle to preserve the old type of colonialism, are striving to keep their former possessions under their rule on the basis of neo-colonialism.

The more the ties binding the Commonwealth weakened, the more stubbornly the ruling classes of England and some of the imperial circles of the old dominions looked for ways and means of carrying out some kind of common foreign and military policy.

Here the question arises, why are the British ruling circles striving to find a common language with the countries of the Commonwealth?

The war caused great damage to England. The industrial potential was not affected, but direct material losses - sunken ships, destroyed buildings, etc., as well as various indirect losses amounted to a huge amount.

Foreign trade turned out to be a particularly difficult problem in post-war England. The struggle for markets has become even more acute than before. After the war, many countries broke with capitalism and therefore the scope of its activities as a whole was reduced. In the narrowed arena, the competition of the capitalist monopolies has intensified.

The situation called into question the stability of the British currency and threatened to undermine the credit of England, and with it her leading role in international trade and finance.

The English bourgeoisie had no intention of leaving the world arena. She intended to retain as many positions as possible in the world economy and politics. In the struggle for influence in the world, she considered her colonial possessions as the main guarantee of success; in them she saw a true anchor of salvation. “The prevailing view was that the Commonwealth is still of value, especially if we have in mind relations with the“ third world ”.

The empire was a huge market for English goods, which enjoyed significant benefits in the colonies and dominions. "... These countries are still an important market for English imports, and the British Isles an important market for their exports."

The empire also served as an inexhaustible reserve and source of raw materials and food for England.

Anchor of salvation

The position of the largest buyer of colonial products, raw materials and foodstuffs gave England advantages that she failed to use in her business relations with the countries of the empire, seeking benefits. At the same time, it allowed her to impose her goods in exchange.

The British Empire served the English bourgeoisie as a source of very high profits, exceeding the capital in England itself. "In all the countries of the Commonwealth, English private capital occupied an important and in some cases dominant position."

Relying on her colonial possessions, England remained a powerful power after the war. English troops and the English navy continued to control strategic points around the globe.

Thus, the British bourgeoisie saw the empire as a base on which to hold on in the rapidly changing post-war world.

Going to grant independence and presenting this forced step as a voluntary concession, the British tried to furnish it with the maximum number of reservations and conditions, sometimes infringing on the sovereignty of new states. As a condition for gaining independence for all African states, membership in the British Commonwealth and the preservation of former imperial ties were put forward. “Initially, the former British colonies, gaining independence, quite willingly joined the Commonwealth - this was explained both by the energetic efforts of London’s diplomacy and the unwillingness of the respective countries to sharply undermine the imposed ties with the mother country, as well as among themselves.” Yielding to their former colonies, the English bourgeoisie was not going to leave of them. On the contrary, its tactics were designed to gain a foothold as firmly as possible, primarily in their economy. ... The revision of familiar concepts and the development of a new course did not at all mean the complete withdrawal of England from the former colonial possessions. It was about something else - the development of a flexible policy designed to achieve a strategic goal, namely “leaving, to stay”, to maintain their positions.” The conquest of political sovereignty did not yet mean the actual liberation of these countries. Economic backwardness and weakness made their independence transparent. British capital continued to tie up the colonial economy with thousands of threads and exploit the peoples of the former colonies, which had formally become free.

The new position of the former colonies was in some respects even more advantageous for the English bourgeoisie. Continuing to dominate, albeit indirectly, in the former colonies, at the same time, she got rid of the worries and troubles of managing them. In addition, the British avoided conflicts and clashes in this way, and this opened the way to strengthening their influence and expanding trade.

British imperialism in the conditions of the collapse of the British Empire

The loss of political dominance over the former colonies did not weaken British imperialism. The loss of empire, mainly in Africa, did not mean the collapse of colonialism, the collapse of the old colonialism. “... In the last period of the development of imperialist policy, a new method was developed and refined. This method, which is used more and more often, can be called "new colonialism". The essence of this method lies in the fact that the colonial country is legally granted independence, but in fact they seek to maintain and continue their dominance in it by means of special agreements, economic enslavement and economic "advisors", the occupation of military bases and its inclusion in military blocs under control imperialists."

As a result of the collapse of the British Empire, the imperial defense was by no means liquidated. She lost her colonial armies and vast territories on the continents used as strategic footholds. But the armed forces of British imperialism, destined to fight the national liberation movement, expelled from many countries, were by no means reduced. Enormous funds were spent on their strengthening and building up. The imperial defense, from dispersed and scattered over vast possessions, of necessity, under the blows of the national liberation movement, had to become more concentrated and maneuverable. But each of its next restructuring had as its goal to preserve the ability to suppress the revolutionary struggle of the masses along the entire perimeter of the British Empire. To this end, the strategic reserve in the British Isles was strengthened more and more and military cooperation with South Africa, Australia and New Zealand was intensified.

The disintegration of the colonial empire and the illegitimacy of economic and political development undermined Britain's position in the system of imperialism. Its competitors, mainly the USA and the FRG, took advantage of the fruits of this. “The growing spread of American influence over the traditional spheres of British interests through the export of capital and goods is undermining the economic basis of the dominance of British monopolies, i.e. breaks the pivot on which the British Commonwealth rests. However, until recently Britain remained the second country after the USA in terms of share in the world industry of the products of the capitalist countries. England is still the economic center of the Commonwealth.

It is connected with it by a system of customs preferences. It leads the largest monetary and financial associations in the capitalist world - the sterling zone, has the most extensive banking system and the widest network of colonial monopolies. London remains the financial center for much of the capitalist world.

What is the source of England's preservation of its world positions, despite the collapse of the British Empire? The whole point is that the breakdown of economic relations, which form the basis of the division of labor within the Commonwealth, as well as between Britain and a number of liberated countries that remain in the orbit of British imperialism, is proceeding much more slowly than the change in the political situation of these countries.

The imperialist division of labor, reinforced by a series of bilateral and multilateral agreements, continues to tie the economy of a vast part of the capitalist world to the economy of England by visible and invisible threads.

The resources of the British Isles are only a part of the overall economic potential of England, and the English monopolies continue to dispose of a significant part of the economic resources of these countries.

In the context of the collapse of the British Empire, the entire structure of British imperialism is being restructured: its industrial base, financial and banking system, strategy and policy.

“Exercising its usual flexibility, the British bourgeoisie, in the midst of the resolute, consistent and persistent struggle of the peoples of Asia and Africa for their freedom and independence, is trying to get out of the blow, replacing the old, dilapidated forms of colonialism with new ones - “neo-colonialism”, more in line with the requirements of the moment.

At the same time, Britain's spheres of influence are becoming the object of economic and military-strategic expansion by other imperialist states.

The myth of the "historical inevitability" of England's entry into the "Common Market"

In recent years, the processes of imperialist "integration" have played an ever more important role in the economy and politics of capitalism, which has found its fullest embodiment in the activities of the European Economic Community. The creation of the EEC testified to a change in the balance of power in continental Western Europe. The intentions of the ruling circles of England to include their country in the "Common Market" was one of the most striking manifestations of the fall of the role of England in the world capitalist system, the collapse of the British Empire. "The desire of the British government to join the Common Market may lead to the rupture of old economic and commercial ties with the countries of the Commonwealth." 28 The inclusion of this country in the EEC would contribute to the further development of centrifugal forces in the Commonwealth. The processes of "integration" in Western Europe are not limited to the framework of the "Common Market". The internationalization of economic ties under capitalism takes various forms. The question of participation in the EEC and EFTA has become one of the central issues in all economic policy and internal political struggle in England.

The traditional economic relations of England with the countries of the Commonwealth, the preservation of such economic levers as the imperial preferential system and the sterling zone, with the help of which England has for many years exercised its dominance in the imperial countries, for a long time determined England's hesitation regarding its participation in the Common Market. . "The predominantly European direction of English economic relations, in the event of England joining the Common Market, will fundamentally undermine the centuries-old division of labor on which the Commonwealth of Nations rests."

The collapse of the British colonial empire was one of the most important reasons for the European reorientation of England. At the same time, the creation of the "Common Market" contributes to the weakening of the positions of British imperialism in the Commonwealth. Britain's participation in the EEC will lead not to the strengthening but to the further undermining of imperial ties. Of course, it cannot be assumed that, by entering the Common Market, England automatically loses the Commonwealth, but there is no doubt that the preference for Europe will increase the penetration of the monopolies of other imperialist countries into the Commonwealth to the detriment of England.

However, despite the decline in the role of the Commonwealth countries in British foreign trade, trade with these countries is of great importance for England. The Commonwealth is a kind of "common market of imperial countries"; a significant part of trade between them is carried out on terms different from their trade with the "third world". Getting cheap raw materials and foodstuffs from the Commonwealth countries helps to increase the competitiveness of British monopolies in foreign markets. A significant part of British exports, in particular to the EEC, in addition to re-exports, is processed, refined in England products of the peripheral countries of the Commonwealth. England's participation in the Common Market will not only not strengthen her position in the Commonwealth, but, on the contrary, will weaken them in Europe.

Thus, non-participation in the Common Market, and the elimination of various kinds of closed economic groupings and the development of mutually beneficial trade with all countries of the world, regardless of their political or social system, will open up real prospects for the growth of her foreign trade for England, which can serve as an important factor in improving the economic situation of the country, as well as its position in foreign markets.

In order to better understand what a commonwealth is, it is necessary to briefly return to history. The name "commonwealth" was coined in order to indicate the new position that the so-called resettled colonies occupied in the empire, i.e. English possessions, inhabited in the majority by immigrants from Europe. Having won autonomy, they refused to be called colonies and adopted a more euphonious name - dominion.

By the end of the 30s, the dominions were already completely independent sovereign states, united only by common citizenship - the English king, a symbol of the unity of the Commonwealth countries, is also the king in the dominions. “In the language of the constitution, the only unifying factor valid for all the various parts of the empire is the “crown”. … However, the “crown” is a constitutional symbol, not an executive body.” In essence, it was just a legal fiction - neither the king nor the English parliament had any right to control or interfere in the affairs of the dominions. "... The "crown" is not the executive power in any dominion, old or new, in relation to the dominions, the "crown" is the "head of the commonwealth" no more. The preservation of these ties promised certain benefits to the national bourgeoisie of these countries: raw materials and foodstuffs of the dominions found an extensive market in England, and the Ottawa agreements secured this market for them, in England the dominions received loans on preferential terms, at a lower interest rate than in other countries. In addition, the support of the mighty English fleet served as a powerful shield for the young nations and a guarantee against any encroachment on their sovereignty.

After the Second World War, British political dominance in a number of countries in Asia and Africa came to an end, before the new states that arose on the site of the colonies, the question arose about the form of state existence and about the attitude towards the Commonwealth and England. The propertied classes, acting as spokesmen for the national interests of these countries, proceeded from their understanding of those advantages and benefits, which promised them the preservation of ties with England and the Commonwealth. In addition, the new states, considering the prospect of participation in the Commonwealth, had in front of them a ready-made model of interstate relations, which was developed by the old dominions and England.

As a result, the vast majority of new states decided to remain in the Commonwealth.

At the same time, it was established that each member of the Commonwealth henceforth himself establishes the title that the Queen of England bears as the supreme ruler of this state.

Between England and the dominions, the system of official relations was transformed. In July 1947, the Dominion Office was to become the Commonwealth Office. In March 1964, a special committee set up to study the structure of British missions abroad recommended that the overseas staff of the Commonwealth Office and the Foreign Office be merged - the dominions were effectively equated with foreign powers.

Undoubtedly, as a result of internal development, the Commonwealth has changed a lot. All its participants are completely equal and independent, none of them can impose their will on others. Periodically convened meetings of prime ministers do not make binding decisions, but only coordinate views. Members of the Commonwealth do not have a common policy and in some cases may conflict with each other.

When they crumbleempires, their currencies fall first. Even cleareris the rise in debt of an empire in decline, because in most cases their physical expansion is financed by debt.

In each case, we have provided some useful statistics to showcase this drama. Each case is different, but what they have in common is that the currencies of each of these declining empires plummeted in value. Let me go through each of these cases, starting with the Romans. (Chart 1)

The first graph shows the silver content of Roman coins from 50 AD. before 268 AD But the Roman Empire existed from 400 BC. before 400 AD Its history is one of physical expansion, like that of almost all empires. Its expansion was carried out with the help of an army, which included citizens of Rome, paid in silver coin, lands and slaves from the occupied territories. If the silver in the treasury wasn't enough to make war, other metals were added to the coins to make more money. This means that the authorities depreciated their currency, which predicted the fall of the empire. This was the limit of expansion. The empire was becoming overstretched, running out of silver money, and gradually fell under the blows of barbarian hordes.

France

The second case is France during the Bourbon dynasty, which ruled France from 1589 until its fall in the French Revolution in 1792. Graph 2 shows the value of the French currency against the British from 1600 to 1800, when it became completely worthless. The kings of France waged constant foreign wars in Africa and America, and, of course, financed these wars on credit. The so-called Seven Years' War (1756-1763) proved to be quite costly for France. The outcome of this war, in a bitter struggle with Great Britain for their American colonies, was that France lost almost all significant footholds in North and South America and her navy too. Great Britain has become the dominant power in the world. Lands in the colonies and potential tax revenues from there to the French state were gone, but debts and interest expenses remained. In 1781, the cost of interest as a percentage of tax revenue was 24%. By 1790 it had risen to a staggering 95% of total tax revenue! Taxes were paid only by the so-called third estate (peasants, working people and the bourgeoisie, i.e. the mass of the population), but not by the church or the nobles. No wonder the French Revolution broke out. The nobility was hung from lampposts in Paris, the churches lost all their possessions, and the king was beheaded on the guillotine.

United Kingdom

Britain only looked like a winner, but the Napoleonic Wars from 1805 to Waterloo in 1815 and the loss of the American colonies (those rude guys didn't want to pay taxes for King George to fund his wars to conquer and plunder other peoples and lands) led to the fact that His Majesty's Government's debt has skyrocketed (Chart 3). But the optimal way to finance it, with perpetual consols and annuities from the Bank of England (which was founded in 1694 by King William III and his business friends from Amsterdam on a private basis) saved the government from bankruptcy. Nevertheless, the Bank of England was forced to stop the exchange of papers for gold. Their great happiness was that the steam engine industrial revolution had begun in England, bringing unprecedented economic growth and reducing debt in relative terms.

France after Waterloo was defeated, and no other enemy or rival for global hegemony was in sight. The 19th century was a time when the British upper class spent everything they looted and took from their colonies. They came to Switzerland and climbed the mountains (the British climber Matterhorn was the first here). They were the first to go to St. Moritz for the winter holidays, as well as to many other places. They were perceived as gentlemen, because then it was possible to earn so much money only by hard and serious work.

But France and the Continent in general remained a potential enemy. When Bismarck went to war against France in 1871, this was considered good news in London, since the weakening of France was only to the benefit of Britain. But the defeat of France gave birth not only to a new united Germany under the hand of Bismarck and Prussia, but also to a new economic power in her person.

Britain, where the first Kondratieff cycle began with the steam engine, fell into a severe depression in 1873. But Germany started a new Kondratieff cycle with a diesel, gasoline and electric engine (the founders are the Germans: Messer, Diesel, Otto and Siemens). Soon Germany was producing more steel than England. The new source of energy - oil - made the German warships faster than the British, which caused great concern in London. Deutsche Bank and Georg von Siemens began construction of the Baghdad Railway, which ran from Berlin through the Austrian Empire, Serbia and the Ottoman Empire to the oil fields of Kirkuk, north of Baghdad. Oil was at that time discovered only in Baku (Russia), Kirkuk and Pennsylvania (USA). The new German railway to Baghdad was out of the reach of the British naval forces and out of the waterways controlled by them. The alarm bell rang in Whitehall.

When the young German Kaiser Wilhelm II came to power in 1888, he began to assert his own role in foreign policy in direct opposition to the principles of the Iron Chancellor Bismarck, who carefully nurtured a system of alliances around Germany in order to secure her peace and economic freedom. In 1890, Bismarck was removed by Kaiser Wilhelm, as Wilhelm wanted colonies and an empire like all his relatives, who were the monarchs of England, France and Spain. With the departure of Bismarck, the British decided on a war in which the continental powers were to crush each other. Britain calculated that it could easily destroy the teetering Ottoman Empire in order to gain control of Mesopotamia with Kirkuk and its oil, break the new German oil line to Baghdad, and occupy Mesopotamia and the oil-rich Middle East, including the Persian Gulf, themselves. This plan became known in history as the First World War. It didn't quite work out the way London had hoped.

Instead of ending as expected, within a few weeks the war became a huge and costly event that lasted over four years, claimed millions of lives and spread throughout the world. The establishment of the central bank of the US Federal Reserve was part of the preparations for war, as it was the ideal financial reserve for the British Treasury. The principal persons involved in it were Rothschild of London, together with Warburg and J.P. Morgan from New York. Without the Fed, Britain's chances of financing the great war would have been much less.

How did US financial assistance work? When the British government bought military goods from the US and paid in British pounds, the American manufacturer (Winchester or anyone else) sold those pounds to the Fed, who did not exchange them for gold from the Bank of England, but kept them as a reserve currency. The money supply in circulation in the United States at that time grew by about 45%. Thus, the war was partly paid for by the average American through high inflation rates.

The new law creating the Federal Reserve System, just months before the outbreak of war, was pushed through an almost empty Congress on December 23, 1913. It was a de facto bankers' coup. In April 1914, the British King George V, together with his Foreign Minister Edward Gray, visited French President Poincaré. Russian Ambassador Izvolsky joined the conference. At the end of June, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Prince of Austria, Francis Ferdinand was shot in Sarajevo. This event launched the war with Austria's declaration of war against Serbia, which, in turn, drew Russia against Austria and yanked the ever-tangled web of mutual defense treaties throughout Europe. By August 1914 Russia, Austria, Germany, France and Britain were all at war. In 1917, the British army entered Baghdad using poison gases and seized the oil fields. The Ottoman Empire collapsed and the continental European powers crushed each other.

The British got what they wanted, but at a huge price. The public debt rose from 20% of GNP in 1914 to 190% in 1920 (chart 3), or from £0.7bn to £7.8bn. Only the Second World War gave the British a respite. The total human cost of the war was an unprecedented 55 million dead. The pound determined the path of the empire: down (chart 4). Apart from a few rocky islands, the empire had nothing left. Against the Swiss franc, the pound has lost more than 90% of its value so far, and in real terms even more.

G rafik 4 (ed. - unfortunately, the graph is missing in the original article)

The reparations demanded by the victors from Germany passed through Italy, France and England and returned to J.P. Morgan to New York, the main creditor of these allied countries. Sure, Germany might not have paid, but it laid the groundwork for the next World War II and the rise and fall of the next power, the United States.

The second part of this article is being prepared, covering the period from the fall of the British Empire to the present. It includes an analysis of the current currency crisis. (ed. - the second part of the article has not been published, although two years have passed).

I would like to express my appreciation for political ideas to William Engdahl, author of "A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Policy and the New World Order".

Rolf Nef is an independent bank manager based in Zurich, Switzerland. He is a graduate of the University of Zurich in Economics, with over 25 years of experience in the financial markets. He manages Tell Gold & Silber Fonds, a regulated hedge fund under Liechtenstein law. His e-mail [email protected]

Translation specially for the site "War and Peace" ..

BRITISH EMPIRE(British Empire) - the largest empire in the history of mankind, in the period between the First and Second World Wars, it occupied up to a quarter of the entire earth's land.

The composition of the empire, ruled from the mother country - Great Britain - was complex. It included dominions, colonies, protectorates and mandated (after the First World War) territories.

Dominions are countries with a large number of immigrants from Europe, which have achieved relatively broad rights of self-government. North America, and later Australia and New Zealand, were the main destinations for emigration from Britain. A number of North American possessions in the second half. 18th century declared independence and formed the United States, and in the 19th century. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have been progressively pushing for more self-rule. At the imperial conference of 1926, it was decided to call them not colonies, but dominions with the status of self-government, although in fact Canada received these rights in 1867, the Australian Union in 1901, New Zealand in 1907, the Union of South Africa in 1919, Newfoundland in 1917 (in 1949 it entered part of Canada), Ireland (without the northern part - Ulster, which remained part of the UK) achieved similar rights in 1921.

In the colonies - there were approx. 50 - lived the vast majority of the population of the British Empire. Among them, along with relatively small ones (such as the islands of the West Indies), there were also such large ones as the island of Ceylon. Each colony was governed by a governor-general, who was appointed by the Ministry of Colonial Affairs. The governor appointed a legislative council of senior officials and representatives of the local population. The largest colonial possession - India - officially became part of the British Empire in 1858 (before that, it had been controlled by the British East India Company for a century and a half). Since 1876, the British monarch (then Queen Victoria) was also called the Emperor of India, and the Governor-General of India - the Viceroy. Viceroy's salary at the beginning of the 20th century. several times the salary of the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

The nature of the administration of the protectorates and their degree of dependence on London varied. The degree of independence of the local feudal or tribal elite allowed by London is also different. The system in which this elite was given a significant role was called indirect control - as opposed to direct control, carried out by appointed officials.

The mandated territories - the former parts of the German and Ottoman empires - after the First World War were transferred by the League of Nations under the control of Great Britain on the basis of the so-called. mandate.

The English conquests began in the 13th century. from the invasion of Ireland, and the creation of overseas possessions - from 1583, the capture of Newfoundland, which became Britain's first stronghold for conquest in the New World. The path to the British colonization of America was opened by the defeat of the huge Spanish fleet - the Invincible Armada in 1588, the weakening of the maritime power of Spain, and then Portugal, and the transformation of England into a powerful maritime power. In 1607, the first English colony in North America (Virginia) was founded and the first English settlement on the American continent, Jamestown, was founded. In the 17th century English colonies arose in a number of areas east. coast of the North. America; New Amsterdam, recaptured from the Dutch, was renamed New York.

Almost simultaneously, the penetration into India began. In 1600 a group of London merchants founded the East India Company. By 1640, she had created a network of her trading posts not only in India, but also in Southeast Asia and the Far East. In 1690 the company began building the city of Calcutta. One of the results of the importation of English manufactured goods was the ruin of a number of local cultural industries.

The British Empire experienced its first crisis when it lost 13 of its colonies as a result of the British Settlers' War of Independence in North America (1775–1783). However, after the recognition of US independence (1783), tens of thousands of colonists moved to Canada, and the British presence strengthened there.

Soon, English penetration into the coastal regions of New Zealand and Australia and the Pacific Islands intensified. In 1788, the first English appeared in Australia. settlement - Port Jackson (future Sydney). The Congress of Vienna of 1814–1815, summing up the Napoleonic wars, assigned to Great Britain the Cape Colony (South Africa), Malta, Ceylon and other territories captured in the con. 18 - beg. 19th centuries By mid. 19th century the conquest of India was basically completed, the colonization of Australia was carried out, in 1840 the English. colonialists appeared in New Zealand. The port of Singapore was founded in 1819. In the middle 19th century Unequal treaties were imposed on China, and a number of Chinese ports were opened to the English. trade, Great Britain seized o.Syangan (Hong Kong).

During the period of the "colonial division of the world" (the last quarter of the 19th century), Great Britain seized Cyprus, established control over Egypt and the Suez Canal, completed the conquest of Burma, and established the actual. protectorate over Afghanistan, conquered vast territories in Tropical and South Africa: Nigeria, the Gold Coast (now Ghana), Sierra Leone, South. and Sev. Rhodesia (Zimbabwe and Zambia), Bechuanaland (Botswana), Basutoland (Lesotho), Swaziland, Uganda, Kenya. After the bloody Anglo-Boer War (1899–1902), she captured the Boer republics of the Transvaal (official name - the Republic of South Africa) and the Orange Free State and united them with her colonies - Cape and Natal, created the Union of South Africa (1910).

More and more conquests and gigantic expansion of the empire were made possible not only by military and naval power and not only by skillful diplomacy, but also because of the widespread confidence in Great Britain in the beneficial effect of British influence on the peoples of other countries. The idea of ​​British messianism has taken deep roots - and not only in the minds of the ruling strata of the population. The names of those who spread British influence, from "pioneers" - missionaries, travelers, migrant workers, traders - to such "empire builders" as Cecil Rhodes, were surrounded by a halo of reverence and romance. Those who, such as Rudyard Kipling, poetized colonial politics, also gained immense popularity.

As a result of mass emigration in the 19th century. from Great Britain to Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the Union of South Africa, these countries created a multi-million "white", mostly English-speaking population, and the role of these countries in the world economy and politics became increasingly significant. Their independence in domestic and foreign policy was strengthened by the decisions of the Imperial Conference (1926) and the Statute of Westminster (1931), according to which the union of the metropolis and dominions was called the "British Commonwealth of Nations". Their economic ties were consolidated by the creation of sterling blocs in 1931 and the Ottawa agreements (1932) on imperial preferences.

As a result of the First World War, which was also fought because of the desire of European powers to redistribute colonial possessions, Great Britain received a League of Nations mandate to manage parts of the collapsed German and Ottoman empires (Palestine, Iran, Transjordan, Tanganyika, part of Cameroon and part of Togo). The Union of South Africa received a mandate to govern Southwest Africa (now Namibia), Australia - to part of New Guinea and the adjacent islands of Oceania, New Zealand - to the West Islands. Samoa.

The anti-colonial war, which intensified in various parts of the British Empire during the First World War and especially after its end, forced Great Britain in 1919 to recognize the independence of Afghanistan. In 1922, the independence of Egypt was recognized, in 1930 the English was terminated. mandate to govern Iraq, although both countries remained under British dominance.

The apparent collapse of the British Empire came after the Second World War. And although Churchill proclaimed that he did not become Prime Minister of the British Empire in order to preside over its liquidation, he nevertheless, at least during his second premiership, had to find himself in this role. In the early post-war years, many attempts were made to preserve the British Empire, both through maneuvering and through colonial wars (in Malaya, Kenya and other countries), but they all failed. In 1947 Britain was forced to grant independence to its largest colonial possession: India. At the same time, the country was divided on a regional basis into two parts: India and Pakistan. Independence was proclaimed by Transjordan (1946), Burma and Ceylon (1948). In 1947 Gen. The UN Assembly decided to end the British Mandate for Palestine and the creation of two states on its territory: Jewish and Arab. The independence of Sudan was proclaimed in 1956, and Malaya in 1957. The first of the British possessions in Tropical Africa became (1957) the independent state of the Gold Coast, taking the name Ghana. In 1960, British Prime Minister G. Macmillan, in a speech in Cape Town, essentially recognized the inevitability of further anti-colonial achievements, calling it "the wind of change."

1960 went down in history as the "Year of Africa": 17 African countries declared their independence, among them the largest British possessions - Nigeria - and British Somaliland, which, united with part of Somalia, which was under the control of Italy, created the Republic of Somalia. Then, listing only the most important milestones: 1961 - Sierra Leone, Kuwait, Tanganyika, 1962 - Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda; 1963 - Zanzibar (in 1964, united with Tanganyika, formed the Republic of Tanzania), Kenya, 1964 - Nyasaland (became the Republic of Malawi), Northern Rhodesia (became the Republic of Zambia), Malta; 1965 - Gambia, Maldives; 1966 - Brit. Guiana (became the Republic of Guyana), Basutoland (Lesotho), Barbados; 1967 - Aden (Yemen); 1968 - Mauritius, Swaziland; 1970 - Tonga, 1970 - Fiji; 1980 - Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe); 1990 - Namibia; 1997 - Hong Kong becomes part of China. In 1960, the Union of South Africa proclaimed itself the Republic of South Africa and then left the Commonwealth, but after the liquidation of the apartheid (apartheid) regime and the transfer of power to the black majority (1994), it was again accepted into its composition.

By the end of the last century, the Commonwealth itself had also undergone fundamental changes. After the declaration of independence by India, Pakistan and Ceylon (since 1972 - Sri Lanka) and their entry into the Commonwealth (1948), it became an association not only of the mother country and the "old" dominions, but of all the states that arose within the British Empire. From the name of the British Commonwealth of Nations, "British" was withdrawn, and later it became customary to call it simply: "The Commonwealth". Relations between members of the Commonwealth also underwent many changes, up to military clashes (the largest between India and Pakistan). However, economic, cultural (and linguistic) ties that developed over the generations of the British Empire kept the vast majority of these countries from leaving the Commonwealth. In the beginning. 21st century it had 54 members: 3 in Europe, 13 in America, 8 in Asia, 19 in Africa. Mozambique, which had never been part of the British Empire, was admitted to the Commonwealth.

The population of the Commonwealth countries exceeds 2 billion people. An important legacy of the British Empire is the spread of the English language both in the countries that were part of this empire and beyond.

Relations between the British and Russian empires have always been difficult, often very unfriendly. Contradictions between the two largest empires led in the middle of the 19th century. to the Crimean War, then to a sharp escalation in the struggle for influence in Central Asia. Great Britain did not allow Russia to enjoy the fruits of its victory over the Ottoman Empire in the war of 1877–1878. Great Britain supported Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905. In turn, Russia strongly sympathized with the South African Boer republics in their war against Great Britain in 1899-1902.

The end of open rivalry came in 1907, when, in the face of the growing military power of Germany, Russia joined the Cordially Accord (Entente) of Great Britain and France. In World War I, the Russian and British empires fought together against the Triple Alliance of the German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires.

After the October Revolution in Russia, her relations with the British Empire escalated again ((1917)). For the Bolshevik Party, Great Britain was the main initiator in the history of the capitalist system, the bearer of the ideas of "rotten bourgeois liberalism" and the strangler of the peoples of the colonial and dependent countries. For the ruling circles and a significant part of public opinion in Great Britain, the Soviet Union, asserting its ambitions, was a hotbed of ideas to overthrow the power of the colonial metropolises around the world by a variety of methods, including terrorism.

Even during the Second World War, when the USSR and the British Empire were allies, members of the anti-Hitler coalition, mutual distrust and suspicion did not disappear at all. Since the beginning of the Cold War, recriminations have become an integral feature of relationships. During the collapse of the British Empire, Soviet policy was aimed at supporting the forces that contributed to its collapse.

The Russian pre-revolutionary literature (including historical) about the British Empire for a long time reflected the rivalry and contradictions of the two largest empires - the Russian and the British. In Soviet literature, attention was focused on British anti-Soviet actions, on anti-colonial movements, crisis phenomena in the British Empire and evidence of its collapse.

The imperial syndrome in the minds of many Britons (as well as residents of other former metropolises) can hardly be considered completely weathered. However, it should be recognized that in British historical science during the years of the collapse of the British Empire there was a gradual departure from traditional colonialist views and a search for mutual understanding and cooperation with the emerging historical science of countries that proclaimed their independence. Turn of the 20th and 21st centuries was marked by the preparation and publication of a number of fundamental studies on the history of the British Empire, including on the problems of interaction between the cultures of the peoples of the empire, on various aspects of decolonization and on the transformation of the empire into the Commonwealth. In 1998–1999, a five-volume Oxford History of the British Empire. M., 1991
Trukhanovsky V.G. Benjamin Disraeli or the story of one incredible career. M., 1993
Ostapenko G.S. British Conservatives and Decolonization. M., 1995
Porter b. The Lions Share. A Short History of British Imperialism 1850–1995. Harlow, Essex, 1996
Davidson A.B. Cecil Rhodes - Empire Builder. M.– Smolensk, 1998
Oxford History of the British Empire. Vols. 1–5. Oxford, New York, 1998–1999
Hobsbaum E. Age of Empire. M., 1999
Empire and others: British Encounters with Indigenous people. Ed. by M.Daunton and R.Halpern. London, 1999
Boyce D.G. Decolonization and the British Empire 1775–1997. London, 1999
The Commonwealth in the 21st Century. Ed. by G. Mills and J Stremlau. Pretoria, 1999
cultures of empire. Colonizers in Britain and the Empire in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Century. A Reader. Ed. by C. Hall. New York, 2000
Lloyd T. Empire. The History of the British Empire. London and New York, 2001
Royal Historical Society. Bibliography of Imperial, Colonial and Commonwealth History since 1600. Ed. by A. Porter. London, 2002
Heinlein F. British Government Policy and Decolonization 1945–1963. Scrutinizing the Official Mind. London, 2002
Butler L.J. Britain and Empire. Adjusting to a Post-Imperial World. London, New York, 2002
Churchill W. World crisis. Autobiography. Speeches. M., 2003
Bedarida F. Churchill. M., 2003
James L. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. London, 2004

"This is the end of the British Empire"

Singapore and Burma

The blood-soaked division of India destroyed hopes that the British could actually strengthen their empire in the East by setting the country free. Wavell and others have stated that "Britain will not lose prestige and power, but may even increase it by handing over India to the Hindus."

The idea was that the partnership would change custody. There will be cooperation in matters of trade, finance and defense. Both new dominions will be loyal to the crown.

But none of this happened. Partition led to the separation of Pakistan and India from Great Britain and increased the hostility between the two new states. Nehru made India a republic, and it remained in the Commonwealth only because this organization, a ghost of an empire, could change shape at will.

Lord Simon (formerly Sir John) lamented to Winston Churchill in 1949 that Nehru and Cripps had won in the end. Nehru received advantages without responsibility, which allowed Cripps to realize his ambitious aspirations - "to destroy the British Empire."

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan fell apart in two (the eastern wing became Bangladesh). Their governments have established ties with other Muslim countries. As the Indian economy developed, commercial ties were broken along with sentimental ones. Nehru maintained his country's neutrality during the Cold War, but appeared more hostile to capitalist rather than communist imperialism. Most important of all, after the division of the Indian army between India and Pakistan, the peninsula could never again become an English barracks in the eastern seas. As Field Marshal Lord Alenbrook said, when the reign ceased to exist, "the keystone of the defense arch of our Commonwealth was lost, and our imperial defenses collapsed."

The earth shook. Neighboring colonial buildings in Malaya, Burma and Ceylon were no longer safe and secure. Unlike the Roman Empire, which persisted in the east for a thousand years after it disappeared in the west,

The British empire in Asia was crumbling fast. Its imminent collapse, the result of both war and dilapidation in equal measure, began with the fall of Singapore. This event is comparable to the sack of Rome by Alaric, king of the Visigoths.

Singapore, which means Lion City, was a symbol of strength. It was an emerald pendant at the tip of the Malay Peninsula. Sir Stamford Raffles acquired it because of its strategic position. Singapore is roughly the size of the Isle of Wight or Martha Wayyard Island. It is protected by the Strait of Malacca, the main route from the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea. By the period between the two world wars, Singapore had become the fifth largest port in the world. Its business community numbered over half a million people. The Chinese, whose women continued to wear cheongsam robes and whose men quickly adopted Western clothing, outnumbered the local Malays in sarongs, baju (blouses) and kufi hats. The proportion was about three to one. But the city, in which many spiers, domes, minarets and towers soared to the sky, dominating the southern coast, was inhabited and in fact teemed with representatives of alien nationalities. Hindus, Ceylonese, Javanese, Japanese, Armenians, Persians, Jews and Arabs filled the streets with a cacophony of accents and a multitude of colors. The barefoot coolies wore blue cotton pajamas and conical straw hats. They pushed carts under bamboo poles hung with washed linen. Between bicycles and oxcarts on Orchid Road on their way to Asian markets that smelled of squid and garlic. Sikhs in turbans sat in yellow Ford taxis and weaved between the green trams on the Serangoon Road. Crimson stains from the juice of the fruit of the betel palm shone on the pavements. The Sikhs flocked to the Indian bazaars, which smelled of coriander, cumin, and turmeric.

Poverty, malnutrition and disease reigned in the slums. Hungry children in rags scoured the ditches in search of cabbage leaves and fish heads. British officials in tailcoats drove Buicks from countryside bungalows surrounded by jasmine to the cream-walled, red-roofed Raffles Hotel. She stood among the palm trees near the water's edge, "like a cake covered in sugar icing." Here they were greeted by the head waiter "with the manners of a Grand Duke". Here they dined and danced among the spinning fans and rustling ferns. Then they repeated: “Hey, boy! Whiskey with ice!"

European "tuans besar" (big bosses) were self-confident and wore this confidence like a cuirass. They had reason for that. In Singapore, they owned "an impenetrable and impregnable fortress," as the newspapers repeated. It was the largest naval base in the southern hemisphere. They were masters of "the Gibraltar of the East, the gateway to the East, the bastion of British power".

After the end of the alliance with Japan in 1922, governments in London spent over £60 million to fortify Singapore. Admittedly, the money came in crumbs. This was due to post-war disarmament, the pre-war Great Depression, and what Cabinet Secretary Maurice Hankey called "an orgy of extravagance in social reform" that took place between the two world wars. Hankey argued what would become conventional wisdom: the loss of Singapore would be "a catastrophe of the first magnitude. After that, we may well lose India, and Australia and New Zealand will stop believing in us.”

General Smetz warned the Dominion Office in 1934 that if Britain were to lose control of the East to Japan, it would "go the way the Roman Empire did."

But by 1939, the huge naval base built on the northeast side of the island, overlooking the Strait of Johor and providing twenty-two square miles of deep water anchorage, seemed capable of counteracting the local superiority of the Japanese fleet.

For its construction, the course of a large river had to be changed. They cut down a dense mangrove forest. Millions of tons of earth had been moved, thirty-four miles of concrete pavement had been laid, iron posts had been driven into the fetid swamp to reach the rock base at a depth of 100 feet. Inside the base, which was surrounded by high walls, iron gates and barbed wire, were barracks, offices, shops, workshops, boiler rooms, refrigeration plants, canteens, churches, cinemas, a yacht club, an airfield and seventeen football fields. There were huge furnaces, crucibles and chutes for molten metal, huge hammers, lathes and hydraulic presses, massive underground fuel tanks, a crane capable of lifting a gun turret from a battleship, a floating dock large enough to accommodate the Queen Mary. .

This arsenal of democracy was full of ammunition, gun barrels, propellers, tow lines, radio equipment, sandbags, aeronautical equipment, steel embrasures for long-term emplacements, and spare parts of all sorts.

Approximately thirty batteries defended this place. The most powerful were the 15-inch guns, which could tear to shreds the heaviest Japanese warships. Contrary to the myth, these cannons could be turned to face the land. (Although their shells, which were armor-piercing rather than high-explosive, would have been ineffective against troops). But the jungles of Malaya were supposed to be impenetrable.

Almost everyone expected that the attack on Singapore would be carried out from the sea, and therefore it would be easy to repel. In the thirteen-story building known as the Propaganda House, British broadcasting stations fostered public contempt for the Japanese. The radio stations were cheered by the Ministry of Information from the metropolis, it urged them to emphasize the power of Singapore. If the Japanese arrive, then in sampans and junks. Their planes are made from bamboo sticks and rice paper. Their soldiers are bow-legged dwarfs suffering from myopia, so they are unable to hit the target. If you take all this as a whole, it turned out that the Japanese were just imitating civilization, creating its fake counterpart.

Further confirmation of the invulnerability of the island was the obligation of the British government to send a fleet there in the event of hostilities with Japan. On becoming First Lord of the Admiralty in 1939, Churchill emphasized that Singapore was "a stepping stone" to Australia and New Zealand. He was also the pivot of the wheel on which everything rests between the antipodean dominions and India.

When war threatened to engulf the whole world, General Sir John Dill, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, said: "Singapore is the most important strategic point of the British Empire." Therefore, although Churchill by that time gave priority to the Middle East, he rejected the proposal of the Admiralty and sent two large warships to the Far East - the Prince of Wales and Repulse, escorted by four destroyers. This flotilla, codenamed “Z Division”, arrived in Singapore on December 2, 1941. Its task was to repel a potential enemy. She seemed to those who looked from the side of the embankment, "a symbol of absolute reliability."

The powerful new battleship Prince of Wales, which was damaged during the operation against the Bismarck, was known as "His Majesty's Ship Unsinkable".

The arrival of "Z Division" emboldened the commander-in-chief in the Far East, Air Chief Marshal Sir Robert Brooke-Popham, and he announced that Japan did not know where to turn his head, and "Tojo scratches his head."

However, Japanese Prime Minister Hideki Tojo has already made a fatal decision. On December 7, planes from the aircraft carriers of the combined fleet of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto bombed Pearl Harbor, and the first units of the 25th Army of General Tomoyuki Yamashita landed on the northeast coast of the Malay Peninsula. The next day the London Times announced: Great Britain is at war with Japan. She also published an article titled "Singapore is Ready".

The island's garrison consisted of soldiers from many parts of the empire. There were "stout British foot soldiers, Scottish highlanders, tanned young giants from Australia, tall, bearded Sikhs, Muslim riflemen fresh from the northwest frontier, stout little Gurkhas, Malays from the Malay Regiment." The streets were full of people in uniform, planes were constantly buzzing over their heads, sirens were howling, signaling air-raid drills. At night, the beams of searchlights played on the water. The presence of the Royal Navy was overwhelming. All this proclaimed that Singapore was "the core of British power in the Far East".

It soon became apparent that the core was rotten. This was partly because the British community in Singapore had softened and relaxed from imperial sybarism and self-indulgence. They lived in a world of servants, a two-hour siesta was required for a second breakfast. In the afternoon, the colonialists lazily played golf, cricket, or went out to sea on a yacht, arranged cocktails and masquerades. Despite the nickname "Singalore" ("Sin in abundance"), the city was not as prone to vice as Shanghai. Brothels were considered illegal, cinemas were much more popular than opium dens. Luxury was preferred, not debauchery. Singapore was a place of "high standard of living and low thoughts".

The idea behind rationing was to serve game on non-meat days. It was an "island of dreams" where it seemed perfectly natural for a woman to turn down help with war work because she signed up for a tennis tournament. It was an enclave of self-satisfied inertia, which was summed up in the Malay term "tid-apa" ("why worry!")

The prevailing apathy was often explained by very high humidity. Kipling said that even plants sweat, "you could hear the ferns emitting sweat." But Duff Cooper, sent by Churchill to Singapore as Resident Minister in 1941, attributed this unhealthy situation to illusion rather than laziness and apathy. As he reported, “The civilian population seems to be sleeping comfortably, confident that the Japanese will not dare to attack. It acquired this sense of false security through the misleading reports of their impregnable fortress, which were issued by a relaxed and ineffective military intelligence.

In fact, Duff Cooper himself was hardly aware of the coming collapse that hung over the island. He was irritated by his own relative helplessness. He threw parties, crudely and obscenely copying the squabbling leaders of Singapore. However, Cooper was not very wrong about Brooke-Popham ("Old Bawler"), whom he considered "almost cuckoo, damn it!"

Supposedly, the Air Chief Marshal fired the first shot from the aircraft (in 1913). But now he was "very tired" (according to the diplomatic expression of General Powell) and "had no lot from dinner time onwards."

Duff Cooper treated with equal disdain the governor of the Straits Settlement, Sir Shenton Thomas, who was "the mouthpiece of the last man he spoke to." Again, it was a fair verdict. Others thought that the sociable Thomas, who liked to drink and eat with friends, "sanguine to the point of complacency", was best suited to the position of director of a preparatory school.

Governor Thomas urged that proper instructions be given to prepare for an air raid alert so as not to cause unnecessary disturbance. So he made sure that no sirens sounded and no blackout measures were taken. This continued on the night of December 8, when the first Japanese bombers hit Singapore.

Duff Cooper survived another enemy bombardment a few weeks later - just as he was about to fly home. His mission in Singapore came to a very fitting conclusion - Cooper was taken to a "bomb shelter made entirely of glass."

The Prince of Wales and Repulse could just as well have been made of porcelain, as they went out to intercept Japanese transports without fighter protection against dive bombers and torpedo bombers. The commander of Z Division, Admiral Sir Tom Philips, was a puny, grumpy, and fight-loving sailor whom Winston Churchill nicknamed "The Sparrow." He had so little sea experience that another admiral, Andrew Cunningham, said: Phillips could hardly tell bow from stern.

Moreover, Phillips held the traditional navy view (which Churchill shared) that armored leviathans could easily deal with mechanical harpies. On December 10, 1941, this opinion cost him his life. He ordered to give him his best hat, and together with her and his ship went to the bottom. More than eight hundred sailors were killed. The Japanese planes were not hindered by radar-controlled "pom-poms" known as "Chicago pianos". They sank both large ships. Their loss was Churchill's biggest shock of the war and filled Singapore with a "feeling of complete disaster".

It was a "catastrophe of gigantic proportions", as one English soldier wrote: "We felt completely open to attack." Morale sank when it became clear that the fast and nimble Mitsubishi Zeros could turn the Royal Air Force menagerie of Buffaloes (Buffaloes), Wildbeasts (Wildebeests) and Walruses into mincemeat. walruses"). Aptly named "flying coffins", these bulky, clumsy and obsolete aircraft soon ceded control of the Malayan skies to Japan.

Therefore, less than a week after the start of the war in the East, the British were forced to defend the peninsula with the forces of virtually one type of troops. Their army was ill-trained and ill-equipped for this purpose. Unlike Yamashita's three divisions, which had learned the art of quick maneuvering against the Chinese, the defenders had little combat experience. Many of the green Indian soldiers never saw a tank until they met the Japanese, who were in battle order against the Rolls-Royce armored vehicles of the First World War - real "museum pieces".

The British had plenty of other motorized transport, but he kept them on the roads that ran through rubber estates, banana plantations, and palm groves next to the jungle-covered mountain range. The Japanese traveled light, rode bicycles (and if they pierced the tires, they moved on the rim of the wheel), wore canvas shoes (they did not become heavy when wet during the monsoons, like English boots). So the conquerors constantly bypassed the flanks of their opponents scattered throughout the territory, who retreated disorganized. As one officer in charge of the retreat caustically remarked, his job was to worry about getting away.

Except for the 2nd Argyll and Sutherland Highland Regiments, who had experience of fighting in the wilderness, the British and Imperial units simply could not stop the advance. As one Australian gunner put it, "We were babies compared to the Japanese veterans."

The contrast between the leaders was also noticeable. The cruel Yamashita instituted "a discipline as harsh as the autumn frost". He earned the nickname "Malayan Tiger". The British commander, General Arthur Percival, was never able to properly control his subordinates, who called him the "Singapore Rabbit". Indeed, his protruding teeth, sloping chin, as if a guilty smile, small mustache, high nervous laugh did not give a correct idea of ​​\u200b\u200bcharacter. After all, the general was both smart and brave. But unlike Yamashita, the burly, rough, and awkward Yamashita, who believed that the Japanese, who were descended from the gods, should defeat the Europeans, who were descended from the monkeys, he was painfully modest and frustratingly indecisive. His calls for popular resistance were more embarrassing than inspiring.

Percival was not a bright personality, he did not have conviction and dynamism, so he was unable to stimulate and motivate Singapore. The commander did not control the stubborn generals who obeyed him - for example, the Australian Gordon Bennett. The latter, as they said, was always ready for a fight, behaved defiantly and looked for a reason to quarrel.

Arthur Percival did nothing with the stacks of anti-tank pamphlets that were found unopened in a closet at his headquarters, Fort Canning, nicknamed "Castle of Confusion." He opposed the training of Malays and Chinese for guerrilla operations because "a plan recognizing the possibility of infiltration by the enemy would have a terrifying psychological effect on the Eastern mind." The commander shared the standard British view that the Malays did not have any "fighting qualities necessary for the conduct of war" and Tamils ​​would not make soldiers.

When the Japanese captured Penang and Kuala Lumpur, Percival did not pursue an effective scorched earth policy to deprive them of their supplies. When talking on the phone, he was even humiliated - the operator cut off the connection as soon as the three minutes were over. Initially, the commander refused to establish fixed defensive works on the north coast of Singapore, as this would be bad for civilian morale. He then announced that this would be done, revealing the secrets, as Churchill angrily put it, like a newly converted follower of the preacher Buchman at a "wake-up" ceremony.

The Prime Minister was still horrified to find out that Singapore was not at all such a fortress as he imagined. Churchill urged Percival to mobilize the population and fight to the end. But when Yamashita prepared the final blow, the island was still dreamy and apathetic. Movie theaters were full of people, bands were playing on the lawns in front of clubs, dancing continued in the Raffles Hotel. Censors forbade journalists from using the word "siege". When one colonel arrived at the quartermaster's warehouse for barbed wire, he found that it was closed in the afternoon, since it was reserved for recreation and entertainment. When another officer tried to turn the Singapore Golf Club into a stronghold, the club's secretary said that a special committee would have to be called to do this. When an architect from the Public Works Administration used bricks from a colleague's patio to build a bomb shelter in case of a military alert, it led to very strong accusations and a fight. The civil defense department began digging trenches as protection against heavy bombing, but the administration objected that these trenches would be breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Some Australian soldiers themselves refused to dig trenches because it was too hot...

Passed a decree according to which workers who go to work in hazardous areas will not receive additional pay, as this will lead to inflation. Therefore, the Tamils, who were required for the construction of coastal redoubts, continued to mow the grass in the territory remote from the coast. British units demanded detailed maps of the island. They received them, but it turned out that they were maps of the Isle of Wight.

There was real concern about the local "fifth column". Some questioned the loyalty of the Sultan of Johor, who was banned from Singapore because he rioted in the ballroom at the Happy World Fair over his beloved Filipina favorite Anita. These beams could well direct enemy aircraft.

Equally ominous in the eyes of the authorities was that the Sultan gave Lady Diana Cooper a parrot that spoke only Japanese. All things considered, Sir Charles Viner Brooke, the last white hereditary Rajah of Sarawak, was certainly right when he denounced Singapore officials as "simplicitous, conservative and incompetent."

Even more startling were the comments of a Raffles College student when the Johor causeway linking the island to the mainland was demolished (but not completely) with a bang. When the headmaster asked what the explosion was, Lee Kuan Yew, the future Prime Minister of Singapore, replied: "This is the end of the British Empire."

It so happened that Percival worked out the plan of dispositions so ineptly that he actually presented victory to the Japanese on a silver platter. Spreading his troops along the coast, he placed his weakest formations in the northeast, where the Strait of Johor narrowed to a thousand yards. Accordingly, landings were carried out there. The commander left no central reserve for a counterattack. He did not dispatch military police to round up and round up deserters, stragglers, and robbers.

When the whiskey from the Singapore Club was poured out to prevent the drink from reaching the enemy, Australian soldiers were seen “putting their faces deep into the gutter. They collected as much whiskey as they could.”

Percival instructed the artillery to fire only twenty rounds a day in order to conserve ammunition for the long fight. And it all ended with a short collision. When demolition teams set fire to the naval base, filling the air with oily smoke, the Japanese used terror to create panic. They launched a murderous attack on the military hospital, even bayoneting a patient on the operating table, then cutting off the city from the tanks. The Europeans made desperate efforts to escape the ravaged harbour, often pushing the Asiatics out of their boats. Echoing the words of Churchill, who called on officers to die with their units in the name of the honor of the British Empire, Percival announced: “We will forever cover ourselves with shame if we are defeated by an army of smart gangsters, who are many times fewer in number than our people.”

If Percival had used all the resources of Singapore, then perhaps he would have justified his hopes, since the Japanese were dangerously short of ammunition. But he capitulated on February 15, 1942. George Washington trapped 7,200 fighters near Yorktown. Yamashita managed to squeeze over 130,000 people in Singapore.

Churchill, who reluctantly agreed to the surrender, famously wrote: "It was the worst tragedy and the largest surrender in British history." He considered it especially shameful in contrast to the stubborn American resistance to Japanese forces in Batan in the Philippines (although the defenders there also outnumbered the attackers). Subhas Chandra Bose, who recruited prisoners taken during the Malay rout into the Indian National Army, spoke of Singapore as the graveyard of the British Empire.

From a military point of view, as Churchill always assured, the acquisition of America as an ally more than compensated for the devastating raids of a hostile Japan. Moreover, the occupation of Malaya by Japan was so barbaric that it made the British imperial system look subtle by comparison. The first major crime committed by the Japanese was the "cleansing operation" - "cleansing by destruction" ("suk chin") of about 25,000 Chinese.

The attitude of the Japanese towards white prisoners also turned out to be very cruel. They specifically made efforts to humiliate the British in front of their former subjects. The occupiers forced exhausted and emaciated people to sweep the streets in front of the cameras and movie cameras of chroniclers, showed naked women in shop windows. Such humiliations and insults discredited the authors more than the victims. Moreover, the Japanese ruthless exploitation of Malay resources undermined all propaganda about the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". Emperor Hirohito's "New Order" characteristically paid for rubber and tin with worthless and worthless paper money issued by the occupation authorities. (They, thanks to the central ornament, received the nickname "banana money"). At Shonan ("Light of the South"), as the Japanese renamed Singapore, the occupiers threatened to behead anyone who misspelled the emperor's name. For these and other reasons, the people in Malaya (especially the Chinese) greeted the return of the old colonial order in 1945 with "genuine and unbridled joy."

However, nothing else could go the old way. After the loss of Z Division, the British tried to hold on to Singapore's naval base largely out of imperial pride. Therefore, her loss in the first place was a loss of face, a terrible blow to prestige. White supremacy was the basis of their rule, and Yamashita crushed it in a campaign that lasted only seventy days. The only Japanese slogan that continued to sound after the fall of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was: "Asia for Asians." In the words of Lee Kuan Yew, who became Prime Minister of independent Singapore in 1959, “When the war ended in 1945, there was no chance of recreating the old British colonial system. The blinders fell from our eyes, and we saw for ourselves that the local people can run the country.” The shock of the fall of Singapore was felt far beyond the East. It echoed even in the far reaches of the northwestern frontier, where the Pashtuns expressed "contempt that the British had suffered such a serious defeat at the hands of such adversaries."

In Britain, intellectuals now blamed themselves for "undermining the confidence" of the empire by belittling its principles of strength upon which it was built. This is how the philosophers disempowered the old regime before the French Revolution. Marjorie Perham called in The Times for an urgent restructuring of colonial administrations, especially in the area of ​​race relations. The British "deserved reproach for denying full equality within the empire, while blaming Hitler for his master race policy."

Australians felt betrayed by the mother country, as announced by their Prime Minister John Curtin (and his phrase became well known). They now expected protection from the US, "free from any anguish and suffering in connection with our traditional ties or kinship with the United Kingdom." Two days after the fall of Singapore, Henry Lewis published "The American Century" in Life magazine, arguing that the United States must take the place once held by the great powers of the Roman and British empires. But America will reign benevolently, benevolently, generously and generously, providing aid, culture, technology, democracy and peace.

Critics have dismissed this claim as "Lews' thinking", messianic ranting about a new world order that may well turn out to be worse than the old one. But whether Lewis was magnanimous and arrogant or muddled and clueless, he was influential in shaping opinion. This observer helped define America's future role at the very moment when it seemed that Britain was about to lose its empire.

Even American aid in the form of the Chinese armies of General "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell and the "Flying Tigers" of General Claire Chennault could not stop the simultaneous advance of the Japanese in Burma. Once again, the British retreat had all the characteristics of a rout. As in Malaya, it had a fatal effect on the position of the colonial power.

Governor Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, who had to abandon his large collection of top hats, said the British would never again raise their heads in Burma. They were unable to defend themselves against the Japanese invasion, nor to protect the civilian population from attacks on the ground and from the air. For example, at the beginning of April 1942, a powerful air raid nearly wiped out Mandalay from the face of the earth. The first blow destroyed the Upper Burma Club where people had gathered for lunch. The bombs killed hundreds of people, some thrown into the moat of Fort Dufferin. The bombing started fires that destroyed the bamboo huts with thatched roofs in a few seconds. Stronger buildings also collapsed, such as a hospital and a railway station. As one Indian official remarked in an unpublished memoir, N.S. Tayyabji, a similar massacre "did away with any remaining sense of loyalty or sympathy for the cause of Britain among the Burmese and Chinese locals".

Tayyabji helped organize the evacuation of 400,000 Hindus and others from Burma. He spoke of the horrendous circumstances under which land travel took place: a monsoon-drenched jungle swarming with leeches; slushy and swampy mountain paths clogged with panic-stricken people; dirty refugee camps where cholera, dysentery and malaria were rampant; clouds of bright butterflies hovering over bloated corpses. The author of the memoirs witnessed the results of the use of high-explosive bombs and shells by the Japanese: "Severed limbs and pieces of clothing were scattered across the territory, representing an eerie sight." He noted that whites had priority even in flight, and complained of "blatant discrimination".

By the end of May, the Japanese occupied the entire country. According to Tayyabji, they "destroyed the myth of Western invulnerability, and with it those strong ties that could survive 100+ years of exploitation and mindless power."

This was a fair observation, for the Burmese have always been more vehement than other colonized races in opposing British subjugation. (The word "Burmese" denotes both the titular nation of Burma and all the inhabitants of the country as a whole. "Sinhalese" and "Malays" are ethnic terms, but "Ceylonese" and "Malaysians" mean the entire population of the respective countries).

From the very beginning, the Burmese felt a strong bitterness towards the conquerors. The annexation of 1885 filled them with "the thirst for rebellion, the very fury of rebellion against foreign usurpers." As a rule, they were set against the conquerors by a sudden attack on the social, political and religious system that had dominated Burma for three hundred years. It was hierarchical in its structure, supported by the hereditary elite, the king led the country. The theocratic monarch reigned and ruled behind the high red-brick walls that surrounded his palace at Mandalea, under a graceful row of spiers above the audience hall. He alone could display the peacock emblem and wear brocade and silk robes, velvet sandals, precious stones, and gold chains twisted into twenty-four rows.

The king organized all aspects of life, lent money, developed trade, distributed monks into groups and ranks, patronized the arts and determined etiquette. He bestowed ranks, ranks and positions, which were indicated by clothing, jewelry, the right shades of umbrellas and the proper sizes of spittoons. The royal decree was supposed to be valid from the isthmus of Kra to the swamps in the foothills of the Himalayas, from the green valleys of Bengal to the purple uplands of the Shan Land. But the last Burmese king, Thibaut, was overlord only of the Karen, Kachin, Shan, Chin, and a few other clans in the mountains that surrounded the arid headwaters of the Irrawaddy River.

But even in this valley lawlessness rules. Therefore, the British advocated the deposition of the king and direct submission, intending to keep three million of their new subjects by force.

It took the invaders five years to end the confrontation. The patriots have teamed up with the bandits, and the freedom fighters have teamed up with the terrorists. So there was resistance.

Burmese armed bandits with razor-sharp dahas (long knives) and a sincere belief in magic spells and the fact that tattoos of reptiles, cannibals and monsters made them invulnerable earned a reputation for cruelty. They were afraid. They could well douse women with kerosene and set them on fire, beat babies in rice mortars to "real jelly." The retaliatory demonstrations of violence did not frighten the Burmese, who "saw a comic element in the terrible." A division of the Naval Brigade discovered this when they tried to teach them a lesson by executing twelve bandits one by one. “The first one was placed with his back to the wall. A conical bullet hit him between the eyes and blew off the entire top of his head, which disappeared in a strange, grotesque, unexpected way. His comrades, who were standing nearby, waiting for their turn, squealed with laughter at the sight. They laughed as they took turns heading to the execution, treating the whole execution as a big and unusual joke.

Even after the British gained power and became masters, crime increased to an alarming degree.

Undoubtedly, this often became an independent form of rebellion. In any case, the Burmese remained, in the opinion of successive governors of the king, not so much the inhabitants of the province of India, but a nation of rebels. As one of them wrote, his officers tried to "replace the social order with prison discipline."

British rule of law became more oppressive than the Burmese yoke of tradition and custom. Mainly because it was severely imposed. In the 1930s each year a hundred people were hanged. This was a shockingly high percentage in a population of less than seventeen million. George Orwell classically portrayed the horror of such executions.

The British income tax was more intrusive than property taxes. The new system of local government destroyed the old sense of community. The traditional heads gave way to British-appointed village chiefs. They never attained the same loyalty and devotion, although ceremonies were held to equip them with silver-handled dahas and red gilt-handled umbrellas. The elders themselves obeyed the new masters, and to such an extent that the boys in the rice fields sang: “It is not good, it is not good for foreigners to rule in the Golden Land!”

The British never won the hearts and minds of the Burmese, their propaganda often had no effect. For example, attempts to win allegiance to the king and empire ignored the Burmese tradition of choosing popular heroes. (They were those who challenged the authorities).

Even the positive deeds of the British - the expansion of railways, health care, the improvement of agriculture, etc. - did not give the favor of the masses. Yes, one or two members of the tiny educated elite saw such progress as a historical necessity. But they, too, hated the harsh imposition of an administrative system that both broke with the Burmese past and robbed Burmese's brightest sons of any hope of becoming anything more than mere clerks. As one high-ranking white official wrote, inappropriate and alien in spirit reforms did not take root in Burma and did not contribute to the growth of national life. “That is why we remain strangers wherever we go. That is why our template civilization does not penetrate deeply. That is why our programs of self-government do not find sincere support among the population of the East. Our heads are hot and hard at work, but our hearts are cold as ice."

Sympathy was lacking everywhere, sympathy was absent (perhaps with the exception of the realm of football). The English version replaced the Burmese game and supposedly became the "major positive" of imperial rule. However, football provided an outlet for bitterness and violent anti-European feelings. As Orwell himself recalled, “when the little Burmese tripped me on the football field, and the referee (another Burmese) looked the other way, the crowd screamed, bursting into terrible laughter.”

Other questions aroused even stronger passions. The British ruthlessly exploited teak forests, oil fields and ruby ​​mines. Their preference for tribes like the Karen, who were given some degree of autonomy and taken into the army as members of a "warlike race", annoyed the Burmese. They were also annoyed by the influx of Indians, because it changed the look of the country. Coolies from the subcontinent helped push back the jungle in the Ayeyarwaddy Delta, which was full of snakes and insects. They planted rice on an industrial scale and created a "chimneyless factory".

Rangoon became a predominantly Indian city, where coolies huddled in stinking barracks or slept on the streets "huddled so tightly together that there was hardly room to push a wheelbarrow." Other Hindus became moneylenders, enriching themselves on Burmese debts and acquiring much land. Still others got good jobs on railroads, steamboats, prisons, mills, and offices. They have virtually monopolized communications.

Even before the time of King Thibaut, the Burmese had established a telegraph system and adapted Morse code to fit their alphabet. Now it has become impossible to use the phone without knowing Hindi. Foreign influence seemed to pose a threat to the Burmese religion, symbolized by the cult complex of Shwedagoun. The spire of the pagoda was reflected in the Royal Lake and pierced the sky over Rangoon like a "golden arrow". Secular and missionary schools that spoke English were already weakening the influence of the Buddhist monastic order. The British failed to support him, which undermined the central pillar of Burmese civilization. It is no coincidence that the Young Buddhist Association, founded in 1906, provided the first major nationalist impulse after the fall of Thibault, the last "defender of the faith."

The Young Buddhist Association, an eastern echo of the Young Christian Association, began as a student organization dedicated to spiritual matters. But she soon developed cultural interests that promoted patriotism. Efforts to revive Burmese art and literature led to a reassertion of national identity and identity.

During the First World War, which damaged the country's economy, President Wilson aroused the desire for self-determination. In 1919, Burmese antipathy towards the British took the form of a requirement to remove shoes before entering pagodas. The colonial masters forced the Burmese to enter their bare feet, and it was "tit for tat". However, refusing to humiliate themselves, the British simply began to ignore the sacred places. They even boycotted the Shwedagoun cult complex. “This is the sanctuary of our nation's hopes,” said one Burmese leader. “It reflects in its golden beauty the relentless pursuit of the mortal beyond infinity.”

When Lady Diana Cooper removed her stockings and high-heeled shoes to visit the temple in 1941, she noted that the white hosts who received her were horrified: "Such actions will obviously drive us out of Burma." The issue of the pagoda clearly motivated the Burmese to join the wave of resistance that swept through the British Empire after the First World War. In Rangoon, the monks turned their eyes away from heavenly visions and looked at the prospects of earthly salvation. The most violent political leader was U Ot Tama, a saffron-colored revolutionary. He preached that souls cannot reach nirvana until the bodies are freed from bondage.

He and others like him were often imprisoned for sedition. Governor Sir Reginald Craddock denounced them for "sacrificing centuries of admiration for nine days of applause from the astonished masses." But "the people were excited to the marrow of their bones, hearing such bold speeches from their brave leader."

In the words of one Christian missionary of the time, nationalist agitation "breathes the air of the mountain peaks and conjures up vivid images of an uncertain but glorious future."

The agitation became more focused and more secular when the British, renouncing the possibility of Irish-style self-government, did not give Burma even the constitutional advances that had been offered to India. The Ministry of Indian Affairs stated that the government could not be held accountable to the Burmese people because the Burmese people did not exist. It is a heterogeneous entity.

This assertion sparked outrage and led to the emergence of "Own Race Associations" in many of the country's 11,000 villages. Their participants took an oath, declaring that they would be faithful to her or doom themselves to eternal torments of hell: “I will work for self-government in heart and soul and not shy away from my duties, even if they break my bones and tear off my skin.”

Atins (members of the associations) resisted taxation, opposed the legalized sale of alcohol and opium, and freely committed violence. In 1923 the British banned them and established a system of dual power following the Indian model. The new Legislative Council was a broadly representative body elected by landlords, although there were communal and other restrictions on membership. Despite two ministers being sent to the Governor's Executive Council, the Legislative Council had severely limited power. For example, the governor himself administered the tribal regions and controlled defense, finance, law and order.

This smack of democracy hardly satisfied the nation's appetite for freedom. Perhaps the main achievement was the provision of a new field for corruption. Its depth was enormous, and its distribution ubiquitous - as in the office of Abraham Lincoln, whose secretary of state, by all accounts, could steal everything but a red-hot stove.

Most people ignored the elections in disgust, and the political agitation continued. In the late 1920s it found expression in bodies such as the Dobama Association ("Dobama açación"). The word "dobama" meant "we are Burmese". Copying the Irish "Sinn Fein", she began to boycott Western cigarettes, hair and clothing. Its participants touted the virtues of Manila cigars. They praised the beauty of agate locks adorned with garlands of bright flowers such as orchids or jasmine. They sang hymns to the virtues of pink lungi and pasohs (kinds of skirts) sewn from Mandalay silk, as well as gaung-baung made of damask fabric (scarves to wear on the head) decorated with amber.

Chapter Nine The End of the Empire Some historians have censured Constantinople for doing nothing to save the perishing West. From Notitia Dignitatum (see ch. V) we learn that the Eastern Roman armed forces, recovering from the defeat at Adrianople, by the end of the 4th century.