The Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire (The Politically Incorrect Guides)

Reviewed by Brett M. Decker, Editorial Page Editor of The Washington Times:

London-based financier Robert Agostinelli predicted to a mutual dining companion recently that I would only order Sapphire and tonic for pre-supper cocktails. "In his mind, drinking Bombay gin is one little way to help keep the Empire alive," the chairman of the Rhone Group explained, pointing out that a portrait of Queen Victoria adorns every bottle. And he was right. Seemingly minor habits mean a lot for the tweedy set that worships Evelyn Waugh, suffers to keep old Jaguars running and names their offspring after English monarchs.

The zeal of Anglophiles tends to be overdone - like food in Old Blighty - because it needs to compensate for an anti-historical political correctness that has infected academia, twisting an objectively positive institution - the British Empire - into something bad. One writer has done more than hoist a few G&Ts for queen and country. Harry Crocker's new book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire," sets the record straight about the small island that governed a quarter of the planet and had a civilizing influence on the rest of it.

This politically incorrect guide is true to its name and doesn't shy away from controversial subjects. It carefully recounts how Britannia used the Royal Navy and land forces to put the African slave trade out of business, to the chagrin of many Americans. The author also explains that the blood feud between the Irish and their British overlords wasn't originally over religion (both lands were Catholic), but rather, "England regarded Ireland as an uncongenial, barbarous, mystifying colony - but one necessary for the defense of the realm because it was an all too convenient jumping-off point for possible invasions." To add injury to insult, the reader is reminded that the first English conquest of Ireland in 1169 was at the request of an Irish king and approved by the pope (who happened to be English), and that Christianity was originally brought to the Emerald Isle by St. Patrick, an Englishman.

The most impressive takeaway after reading this work is the enormity of the imperial undertaking and the efficiency with which it was run. India, with more than 300 million souls, was occupied and managed by a mere 100,000 Britons. By comparison, California pays over 206,000 full-time bureaucrats to mismanage 37 million residents of the Golden State. It took pints upon pints of personal sacrifice and a stiff upper lip to rule so much territory and most of the seas for so long. As Mr. Crocker summarizes, "Young men, straight out of school, could find themselves in distant lands acting as lawgivers to primitive tribes and dangerous brigands; they were men of conservative sentiments, liberal ideals and boyish pluck."

The history of Albion's empire is dominated by colorful names such as Captain Morgan, Wellington, Raffles and Lawrence of Arabia, all dashing personalities whether a battlefield commander, pirate or businessman. One of the less-familiar personages from the past is Sir Gerald Templer, the general whose vision snuffed out the 12-year uprising led by ethnic Chinese communists in modern-day Malaysia in the 1940s and '50s. "The shooting side of this business is only 25 percent of the trouble; the other 75 percent is getting the people of this country behind us," the "Tiger of Malaya" explained in 1952. "The answer lies not in pouring more troops into the jungle, but in the hearts and minds of the people." The late U.S. Air Force Gen. Edward Lansdale, a longtime CIA operative, was a disciple of Sir Gerald's counter-insurgency strategy based on winning "hearts and minds" and implemented aspects of it into operations that subdued the Huk rebellion in the Philippines in the 1950s and showed promise during our early years in Vietnam in the 1960s. Many of Templer's ideas were resurrected again with success after America liberated Iraq.

The value of Mr. Crocker's book isn't only in what it says, but what it implies. "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire" offers a cautionary tale for Americans who don't believe the sun could ever set on our great land but who are nonetheless skeptical of the U.S. responsibility to lead the world. Even the grandest nations collapse when a people no longer believes in itself or its mission.

Late in life, Winston Churchill sighed, "I have worked very hard all my life, and I have achieved a great deal - in the end to achieve nothing." The former prime minister was lamenting the demise of the empire he hoped would continue to be the guarantor of peace and a force for good in the world. Yet, as Mr. Crocker puts it, "When Britain could no longer maintain the Pax Britannica, it became the Pax Americana." Despite the sun having mostly set on the British Empire, the old limeys' high-minded values of limited government and individual rights endure through its former colony, America, which took up the important burden as Western Civilization's chief proselytizer. Chin-chin to that.

Brett M. Decker is editorial page editor of The Washington Times. He is coauthor of the new book "Bowing to Beijing" (Regnery, 2011).

The PIG Guide to the British Empire advances from a flawed premise. Namely, that there's an informal conspiracy among academics, historians and "liberals" generally to castigate Britain for "alleged sins of racism, capitalism, and ignorant, judgmental, hypocritical Christian moralism" (3). In popular history, at least, the scales have lately swung the other way: Niall Ferguson, Lawrence James and Saul David have produced a sizable body of work celebrating British imperialism. Surely the layman is more likely to read Ferguson's [[ASIN:0465023290 Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power]] than academic texts on mining practices in Ceylon.

On the other hand, Ferguson and James don't argue that the Empire is faultless. They present the defensible view that Britain's actions on the world stage were generally good, highlighting its achievements while conceding the occasional atrocity and failure. Crocker goes further, arguing empire was "incontestably a good thing" (3), incapable of any wrongdoing. Indeed, he finds many of England's worst actions praiseworthy.

Consider one of the Empire's blackest days: April 13, 1919. In response to earlier riots which killed five Europeans, Brigadier Reginald Dyer led 90 Indian troops to the Sikh temple in Amritsar, where a large crowd had peaceably assembled. Dyer's actions were premeditated, telling his Brigade Major "I shall be cashiered for this probably, but I've got to do it." Without warning Dyer ordered his troops to shoot directly into the crowd, maintaining a sustained fire that killed at least 379 people. Dyer later claimed that "my intention was to inflict a lesson which would have an impact throughout all India."

Amritsar provided a catalyst for Indian nationalism. Jawaharlal Nehru's autobiography describes how the Indian National Congress's disgust with Dyer pointed them towards independence. No less than Winston Churchill denounced it as "a monstrous event... which stands in singular and sinister isolation." Yet H.W. Crocker writes that "doing harsh and terrible things [like Amritsar] was sometimes necessary to keep the peace" (148). This sentence unwittingly demolishes Crocker's entire premise. If imperialism requires the periodic murder of 379 people, where lays its virtue?

Crocker evidently relishes punishing recalcitrant colonials. He deems Banastre Tarleton a man "hard not to warm to" for dealing "terror and slaughter" to American rebels (64-65). He gushes over British troops in the Indian Mutiny "cut[ting] through the enemy with avenging swords and Enfield rifles, erecting gibbets to hang surviving traitors" (140-141). (No mention, approvingly or otherwise, of British practice of blasting mutineers from the mouths of cannon.) Displacement of New Zealand's Maoris is "fun-with-muskets" (307). Even Ireland's "irresponsible" Black and Tans are justified by the actions of "charming thug" Michael Collins (90).

As a corollary, Crocker demeans any independence movement lacking instant unanimous support. He parrots the truism that only one-third of Americans wanted independence. He denounces the Easter Rising as a "squalid affair" with no popularity (89), ignoring the outcry English retaliation generated. He marvels over the rise of Indian nationalism post-1919. He discusses Kenya's Mau Mau insurgency without mentioning either the redistribution of Kikuyu land to white farmers which triggered the rising, or the concentration camps established during the "State of Emergency." If Crocker didn't view genocide as "fun-with-muskets" he might understand cause-and-effect.

Equally instructive are Crocker's views towards Britain's subjects. Jamaicans are "Rustyfarians" and "drug-addled ghetto dwellers" (15). The Irish are "comic... shiftless, ignorant, stubborn, contumacious and cruel" (74). Native Americans are deemed "poor, unproductive and occasionally savage" (101). Educated Indians are full of "fruity, overblown rhetoric" (169). Egyptians are "oily" and "jabbering" (247). T.E. Lawrence's Arab allies "fought for no cause more elevated than pleasure and plunder" (279). Early New Zealand was populated with "cannibal Maoris and their white ruffian friends" (307). That's not to mention the post-imperial world of "United Nations bureaucrats, liberal internationalists, native kleptocrats, liberate Islamists and Third World Communists and National Socialists" (9), a combination sure to make Enoch Powell vomit.

This being a "politically incorrect" book, heroic minorities are conspicuously absent. Sorry Gertrude Bell, creating modern Iraq doesn't earn you recognition. Florence Baker, get back in the kitchen; exploring Central Africa with your husband doesn't impress Crocker. Claims that T.E. Lawrence, Charles Gordon and Lord Kitchener were gay? Mere sensationalism by "wilting, effeminate socialists" (209) like Lytton Strachey. Indians, Africans, Amerindians who fought alongside the British? Faceless crowds of colored supplicants.

Mr. Crocker imparts other astounding insights. He mocks Americans for thinking taxation "of course amounts to tyranny," ignoring the "without representation" bit (10). He laments that "the sun set on British West African sooner than it should have" (195) hence forestalling democracy, before non-ironically calling British support of Reza Khan's Iranian despotism a "solution... suitable for most foreign policy jams" (255). The Opium War was "one of Britain's most gloriously high-minded little wars... fought to establish the important principle of free trade" (310). He never explains how enforcing a narcotics monopoly constitutes "free trade," or how flooding China with opium benefited its people.

Most mendaciously, Crocker enlists anti-colonial heroes as mouthpieces for imperialism. Does Crocker *really* want Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence who elsewhere advocated "sink[ing] the whole island in the ocean," as a spokesman for England's benevolence? (Note also Jefferson's "empire of liberty" comment [34] refers to an *American* empire.) He employs pro-British quotes from Mahatma Gandhi dating from 1915 and earlier (145), as if this negates Gandhi's 30 years advocating independence. Kenyan President Jomo Kenyatta indeed denounced the Mau Mau (205); he also said that "the whites must go. Africa is for the Africans."

It's a shame because there's merit to the contours of Crocker's argument. Britain's colonies did often benefit from European rule, be it through wealth, infrastructure or stable government. Yet any reasonable person realizes this isn't universally true; political liberties, wealth distribution and racial makeup varied greatly among colonies. Why was British rule in some regions peaceful and violent elsewhere? Why did some countries become thriving democracies (the US, Australia, India) while others became dictatorships (Egypt, Pakistan, Zimbabwe) or mired in internecine violence (Ireland, Israel, Cyprus)? These are good questions for thinking historians.

High Victorian jingoism isn't the answer. By all means praise Britain for combating Africa's slave trade or outlawing India's appalling Sati practice. Celebrate if you like the courage of Sir Francis Drake or Richard Burton. Watch Zulu and read Flashman free of guilt. But you can't debate economics by labeling gunboat diplomacy "free trade." You can't proclaim the Empire's tolerance while spewing "wogs start at Calais" bigotry. You certainly can't uphold its "principles of justice, fair play and decency" (146) while lauding the Amritsar Massacre. Crocker's ghastly book unintentionally affirms the Left's worst stereotypes about imperialism.

Three cheers for H. W. Crocker and his wonderful book. As an American, and devoted tea drinker, I appreciate this book, and the British Empire for two reasons. First, I like speaking English, and secondly, I really like tea, as well as Sweet Tea whenever I'm in Dixie. I can thank the British Empire for both. But more than that, I appreciate living in a land where the rule of law is protected. As the news on any given day demonstrates, a nation of laws is not a universal right, except in most lands where the Union Jack once was raised. This was a gift from the British to the rest of us. In the last several decades, it was the British who stood with the United States, shoulder to shoulder, when our way of life was threatened, or as the bard wrote , "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers." H. W. Crocker had done a Magnificent job of explaining this epic tale. Well done!

In the PIG British Empire, Harry Crocker reminds me why I have always liked the Brits. They just kicked butt in nearly every aspect of civilization for centuries and Harry lays it all out for you in this concise and blissfully politically incorrect history. The best traits of our country (the USA) can be traced to the British Isles and the statesmen, soldiers, poets, churchmen, drinkers and passionate patriots that went forth from its shores decade after decade. God Bless the British.
Or at least those born before about 1960. The sad aspect of this delightful book is the comparison it makes, unwittingly or not, with today's England. We Americans can hope that the land of our fathers can teach us one last and critical lesson--not to do what they have done.
Read the book and rejoice that Britain ruled most of the world as long as it did.

"My ugly boy Arthur is food for powder and nothing more." - the assessment of Arthur Wellesley's loving mother.

That ugly boy, with a rather large nose, eventually saved England from the man with a large ego, Napoleon, and became the 1st Duke of Wellington. I'm sure his mother did love him. I mean, all mothers are supposed to love their children. Aren't they? I guess we'll never know. But Arthur does grow up to be the very symbol of England's Bulldog tenacity...or am I thinking of Lord Nelson?

In this immensely readable and entertaining book, we are given a brief, but never boring, look at early Great Britain's gallant defenders of the Imperial Crown. From the dirty streets of 19th century London to the bloody streets of 20th century Belfast and to the far reaches of the BE before and between, comes a book about the men who lived among the Bedouin (T. E. Lawrence), stopped the practice of suttee (the burning of a Hindu man's wife after his own death) in India, as well as the African slave trade. It was through the exploits and "God is an Englishman" certainty of those men who believed in themselves and who were absolutely sure that what they were doing was both honorable and right that much good was done and much wickedness was arrested.

If you are interested in actual history, and enjoy reading about the exploits of Englishmen (and Scots and Irishmen) like Raleigh, the pirate Captain Henry Morgan, "Chinese Gordon", and Lords Kitchener and Louis Mountbatten, then I highly recommend this book. If, on the other hand, you are looking for a condemnation of such men as being racist, colonialist exploiters and hate mongers, then this is definitely not the book for you. 5 Stars.

As an Anglophile of decades-long standing, let me just say, "HAIL BRITTANIA!" and jolly good show, old pip. Every world history class in every high school in America should require reading this book...instead of women's studies or gay history.

The author displays his inherent thinly veiled British snobbery by his condescending remarks of other nations and people. In particular his opinion of the Irish that were enslaved by the British Empire for 800 years. The tyranny of the British in their colonies is completely glossed over, In essence, a glimpse into the reason why the Sun now sets on the British Empire.

Britain once governed a quarter of the globe and had the biggest empire the world has ever known. The empire has usually received a bad press in the US, and its sins are usually better remembered than its achievements. Crocker argues that “the Empire was incontestably a good thing.” This book is a fun read and it is mainly aimed at an American audience. The author is pro-British.

The book shows that the Empire was started by pirates, like Sir Francis Drake and Sir Henry Morgan. They mostly stole treasure from the Spanish. The second phase began in the early 18th century when Britain became addicted to caffeine, sugar, tobacco, and textiles. It created ports around the world to source supplies and formed trading entities like the East India Company. Eventually, the need for security led to the creation of armies, and trading turned into conquest and colonization. Between 1600 and 1950, 20 million Britons left the UK to start a new life in a colony.

Crocker reminds us that America was once part of the British Empire, and the Founding Fathers considered themselves British. The national myth is that a group of plucky colonists defeated an evil empire. The Hollywood version is Mel Gibson vs. red-coated Nazis. Crocker explains that the colonists wanted to create an empire of their own. They were disappointed when Britain attempted to limit their expansion west in the hope of avoiding costly Indian wars. George Washington referred to America as "our rising Empire." Jefferson advocated annexing Canada during the War of 1812.

Crocker claims that the colonists were ungrateful. They were lightly taxed, liberally governed, and prosperous. Rudyard Kipling made the case that the colonies rebelled only after England had made North America safe from Spain and France. "Our American colonies, having no French to fear any longer [after the French and Indian War], wanted to be free from our control altogether. They utterly refused to pay a penny of the two hundred million pounds the war had cost us; and they equally refused to maintain a garrison of British soldiers." What the Americans really wanted was the freedom to decide their own fate and raise their own taxes.

Crocker claims that to "To hate the British Empire is to hate ourselves, for the United States would not exist if not for the British Empire. It was that empire that created the North American colonies, giving them their charters, their people, their language, their culture, their governments, and their ideas of liberty and the rule of law, including our critically important common law heritage."

As well as giving birth to the United States, Britain was also responsible for Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The Empire also created the trading cities of Hong Kong and Singapore. It was responsible for the abolition of the slave trade: “It was, of course, the British Empire that abolished slavery in 1807, half a century before America, and which spent £20 million, or 37 per cent of government revenue, freeing West Indian slaves in 1831 alone.” Crocker points out that the empire was extremely efficient. In India, 100,000 soldiers and civil servants governed over 300 million people.

Crocker shows that many countries were better-off under British rule. He writes a chapter on Zimbabwe, which gained full independence from Britain in 1980. At the time of independence, the country was prosperous. Since 1980 Zimbabwe has enjoyed the corrupt and autocratic rule of Robert Mugabe. The country that was once dubbed “the breadbasket of the region” now imports grain and its people are often hungry. At one time, Mugabe was viewed as a hero to many Western liberals, but under his rule, one of Africa’s strongest economies shrank to half the size it had been in 1980. Inflation reached 25 million per cent in 2008. Unemployment hit 90%, while more than 80% of the population was living on just $2 per day. Mugabe is one of the worst rulers Africa has produced. At the same time, Britain had no wish to carry on ruling Zimbabwe forever.

The author includes a chapter on Ireland. Northern Ireland was the Empire's first colony. Settled by protestants from Scotland and England in the 1600s, they stole land from Irish Catholics. Crocker explains that “England regarded Ireland as an uncongenial, barbarous, mystifying colony - but one necessary for the defense of the realm because it was an all too convenient jumping-off point for possible invasions.” So the British planted their own colonists in the north, a cause of friction to this day. He also points out that Christianity was originally brought to the Emerald Isle by St. Patrick, an Englishman. The first English conquest of Ireland in 1169 was at the request of an Irish king and approved by the pope. Both countries were catholic at the time.

Crocker provides brief biographies of many prominent imperial soldiers and rulers. He includes: Drake, Morgan, Lord Cornwallis, Sir Walter Raleigh, the Duke of Wellington, Sir Charles Napier, Clive of India, Lord Curzon, Gordon of Khartoum, Lord Kitchener, Lawrence of Arabia, Sir Richard Burton, Glubb Pasha, Sir Stamford Raffles, Ian Smith, Sir Thomas Blamey, and Sir Gerald Templer.

Was the British Empire a force for good? It depends on whom you ask. The British Empire fostered globalization, overseas investment and free trade. Until 1914, Britain was the world’s banker and funded infrastructure all over the globe. It spread the English language and imposed Western norms of law, order and governance around the world. A 2011 poll showed that over 60% of Jamaicans believed they would be better off as a British colony, 17% disagreed. In Hong Kong, a 2013 poll showed that 92% of those interviewed preferred British rule, to rule from Beijing. While some countries have fond memories of Britain, some do not. The Indian government is asking for reparations. Crocker's book is a great read and it makes you reconsider some of your prejudices.

It was refreshing to read straight history without the usual "politically correct" slant given to everything. Every empire that ever existed had its warts, but they also contributed to the advance of our western civilization. The British Empire brought the benefits of the rule of law, the english language, and modern industial methods to diverse peoples throughout the world. The old empire exists today in the guise of the Commonwealth, and is doing reasonably well.

How does one describe world history of the past few centuries in large print in 350 pages? Selectively. Clearly, Crocker cannot include every crucial encounter, every major battle, war, treaty, or policy. Does he include all the important points?
Around 1600 some thought England overpopulated with some 4.4 million souls. It was not yet the United Kingdom, and yet from these small islands were launched ships that conquered a quarter of the globe. How does one explain this?
In an early chapter on the dispute between England and its 13 American colonies, Crocker quotes John Adams in a reference that might be summarized as "demography is destiny": "...our people,...,will in another century become more numerous than England itself. Should this be the case,...,it will be easy to obtain mastery of the sea; and then the united forces of all Europe will not subdue us."(p. 32) Thomas Paine in COMMON SENSE said something similar: "...there is something very absurd in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island." More recently, Pat Buchanan has written that Europe and traditional America are doomed because Third World immigrants are overwhelming them in their own homelands.
However, is demography destiny? The British Empire may provide sufficient examples that it is not. True, England did lose its 13 colonies by 1783. Yet, even then, England was approximately 5 millions, while the American colonies were less than 3.
If demography is destiny, how can one explain the British Empire? One good feature of Crocker's work is that he provides statistics (imprecise as they may be) of British and British-led armies against various native opponents. So often, the British were outnumbered - frequently overwhelmingly outnumbered, and yet the British defeated their more numerous foes. Crocker describes the courage of the British leaders, some of the wounds inflicted upon them, and yet how they were able to establish an empire.
The mechanical, fatalistic approach - the continent rules the island and not the reverse - is disproven by Britain. Around 1850 the entire British presence in India was 100,000; yet they ruled over approximately 250,000,000. The British islands dominated the subcontinent of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and more: Burma, Malaya, Singapore, Oman. In addition, by 1900 nearly half of the continent of Africa was also under British rule. The island ruled simultaneously plus important trading areas in China, the continent of Australia, and a large section of North America (Canada), and smaller islands scattered across the globe. A famous phrase was grounded in reality - "The sun never sets upon the British Empire." How does one explain this? Clearly, demography is not necessarily destiny.
We are aware of how Cortes, with a few hundred Spaniards and horses defeated the millions of Montezuma in Mexico. How Pizarro and his few conquered the Incas with their masses of men. The British accomplished similar feats, - from the raids by Francis Drake and English pirates on Spanish islands and homeland ports, to the defeat of its massive Armada. The British also won land battles against enormous odds.
At the Battle of Plassey, with some 3,000 men, only a third British, Robert Clive defeated the Indian sepoys with 50,000.(133) Charles Napier, outnumbered 10 to 1, defeated 22,000 Ballucks at Meanee in India in 1843, and the following year, some 26,000 at the Battle of Hyderabad.(122)
Yet, there were some occasions where the British were badly defeated, and Crocker includes these setbacks. In the 1840s some 16,000 British and Indians were slaughtered after Afghanistan had promised safe passage through the Khyber Pass. The British won revenge shortly after by returning to the country, occupying Kabul, and destroying the villages responsible for the attacks.(136 )
In South Africa some 20,000 Zulus slaughtered 1,300 British defenders at the Battle of Isandlwhana, with almost every corpse desecrated. A little later, at the Battle of Rorke's Drift, 120 Brits and colonials held off 4,000 Zulus. However, following that 4,000 British soldiers defeated 15,000 Zulus and burnt their capital at Ulundi.(198-99)
Overall, one may generalize, the British defeated numerous enemy forces on nearly all continents even though they were usually outnumbered, and sometimes overwhelmingly so.
There were a few areas where the British had trouble. One was in South Africa against the Boers, the Dutch settlers who sought to retain their independence against the encroaching English. Unable to defeat the Boers, who resorted to guerrilla warfare, the British rounded up the Boers' families, herding them into concentration camps with barbed wire fences. Using Mao's analogy before Mao uttered it, the Boer guerrillas - the fish who swam in the water of the people, were cut off and isolated from their sources of supplies and support. The British policy of concentration camps succeeded and the Boers were subdued.
One important battle omitted by Crocker was that between British crack troops and American irregulars. The British coalition had just defeated mighty Napoleon in his come-back attempt at Waterloo in 1813. The newly established United States, which had purchased Louisiana from Napoleon in 1803, thereby lost its friend in Europe at Waterloo. Suddenly, America had to confront alone the might of the victorious British Empire. Veteran troops of the European conflicts were sent to seize New Orleans in 1814-1815 (during the War of 1812). The Americans were ill prepared, but under the leadership of Andrew Jackson, a motley group of defenders - Americans, pirates, Cajuns, Blacks - were organized behind a canal- embankment. The British, under Gen. Pakenham, disembarked south of New Orleans, and marched upstream where they encountered the American front line. In what some contend was a prelude to trench warfare of WWI, the Americans behind the embankment fired from relative safety at the oncoming enemy. In the end, Americans casualties numbered 71; the British 2,000, including Gen. Pakenham himself. The British withdrew. Of course, in WWI, the British suffered grievous losses against the forces of the Central Powers. (One error in Crocker's book: he writes of the Axis powers of WWI.(94) Italy was part of the Axis in WWII, but in WWI it was NOT among the Central Powers. Indeed, in the Great War Italy became an ally of Britain and France.)
In simplest terms, the British invariably defeated Third World peoples in battle, often though vastly outnumbered, often conquering them. A small number of British sailors and soldiers might defeat massive armies of Third Worlders. Demography was not destiny. The British did, however, experience a much tougher time in battles against Americans, Boers, Germans, and other Europeans.
Victor Davis Hanson in CARNAGE AND CULTURE has written about the superiority of the Western soldier first evidenced in the wars of ancient Greeks against the Persian Empire. That superiority generally continued until the mid-20th century, and Britain was the primary exhibit of this generalization. Britain did conquer a quarter of the world - with France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, Netherlands, Spain, and America, gobbling up much of the rest. Britain would face its greatest challenges when warring against other white peoples.
What did the British Empire do to or for its conquered peoples? Overall, the British created infrastructure, roads, ports, railroads, telegraph lines; it helped develop products like rubber, tobacco, cotton, tea, gold, and provided world-wide markets for these products. It was the British Empire that embarked upon a crusade against slavery, and in so doing, battled ever more and ever deeper into Africa to end the practice. Strange, but the Empire grew in its quest to abolish slavery. In time, the British brought Western law, Western values, fair play, sport, and even the English language as a unifying element. The British Empire ruled before the madness of multiculturalism infected its leaders; so the British could seek to end slavery no matter what the local practice was. The British could seek to end the burning of widows, no matter what the religion of the people maintained. Cannibalism, the murderous Thuggee, and other practices were abolished and could be abolished before multiculturalism declared all cultures equal.
What else did the British Empire do? It brought modern medicine. It brought written language to some areas (no written language had been invented in sub-Saharan Africa; nor had the wheel). Even confronting older cultures, the British added something important. What was Hong Kong before the British acquired it? Nothing. What was Singapore before the Brits? Nothing. Indeed, what was America? And the British developed Australia, Canada, and other lands.
On several pages Crocker states how the British admired the warlike peoples against whom they fought.(288) There is some irony here. He also notes that in 1831 some 42% of the British Army was composed of Irishmen - Protestants often officers, Catholics in the infantry. The Irish outnumbered the English in the British Army. Yet, most Brits did not admire the Irish. And the enmity was mutual.
Crocker's short book presents biographical sketches of the courageous men who made the British Empire - Drake, Henry Morgan, Cornwallis, Raleigh, the Duke of Wellington, Clive, Gordon, Kitchener, Lawrence of Arabia, Churchill, Ian Smith and others. His range is several centuries and many continents. The writing is clear. Crocker's Chapter 2 is an utter waste and fantasy (an alternative history)that nearly turned this reader away from the other wiseworthy volume.
Yet there is an important "fantasy" question that Crocker does not, yet should have raised. 1) Could Churchill have saved the British Empire? 2) Should he have saved it? Most are aware of how Britain and the US stirred National Liberation Movements in WWI in order to help defeat the empires of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottomans. At the peace treaties new nations were carved from old empires: Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Albania. Yet one often neglects - and Crocker is typical here -the German contribution to National Liberation Movements. Thus, in 1916 from a German Uboat Sir Roger Casement emerged to help lead a revolt of the Irish against the Brits. No need to recount the failures of the revolt and its related Easter Uprising in Dublin. But it is from this failed attempt that finally sprang a more independent Irish Free State under De Valera, one of the rebels of 1916.
It was also in WWI that some of the Germans inspired a new excursion of guerilla warfare in Africa. Most of the German colonies, deprived of supplies from the Vaterland by the dominant British naval forces, had to capitulate. However, in German East Africa, the colonials relied on ingenuity and the natives, first to survive Allied blockade and invasions, and then forging their guerrilla forces, by war's end, the German-Africans were preparing to invade British colonies to the South. Africans were also aware of the how well they did with little support from Europe.
In WWI the British also stirred the Arabs to revolt against the Ottomans, but unlike in Europe, few new nations immediately resulted. At the peace tables Lebanon and Syria were given to France, while the British won Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Trans-Jordan. Saudi Arabia became independent. To muddle the situation, the British had also promised a homeland for the Jewish people in the Trans Jordan area.
The newly created Soviet government in Russia had publicized secret documents by the Allied coalition concerning their desire to carve up the lands of the Central Powers. The Soviets' early response was to attack imperialism and permit nations to secede from the Russian Empire. So Armenia, Georgia, and other nations came to exist, for a short time. But soon thereafter, most of these lands were re-incorporated into the Soviet Union. Soviet leaders sought to portray their new land not as an empire, not as Russian, but a union, multicultural, composed of many peoples, customs, and languages, and all prospering under "socialism." Even Jews were given a homeland in the new USSR, in Birobizhan in eastern Siberia. There was the Communist answer to Zionism.
The common notion that the Left and the National Liberation Movements are intertwined with, if not identical to, the Left was reinforced after WWII. Mao's China, Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam were not merely Left, they were Communist. The Algerian FLN fought against France, and seemed Left, as did the Egyptian military that overthrew King Farouk, then seized Suez, and negotiated the large Aswan Dam project with the Soviets. In newly independent nations of Africa, many leaders proclaimed their policy African Socialism, some even spurning American aid for that of the Soviets. Castro "liberated" Cuba from being an American satellite, and Che fought to spread socialist revolutions throughout the hemisphere. National Liberation and the Left were essentially the same; or were they?
When Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, one of his aims was to "liberate" Germans at home and abroad. For example, with the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1918, and the peace leaving only a tiny slice to constitute the new Austrian republic, many Austrians, whose language and culture were Germanic, sought to unite with their larger, German neighbor. While the victorious Allies spoke of self determination of nations, they implemented the policy only when it suited the national interests of the Allies. The Allies had just defeated Germany, taken its colonies, taken away German majority areas to give them to Poland, and the Allies were not about to let Austria enlarge Germany, no matter what the Austrians and Germans desired. Germany was so weak following its defeat in 1918 that France occupied the demilitarized Ruhr in 1923, and the German government responded by supporting a strike, and printing evermore Reichsmarks for the strikers. The inflation of the German currency in 1923 is a textbook case on worthless paper money. There were economic and political consequences of this inflation. To prevent another such catastrophe, Hitler ordered German troops to occupy the German "demilitarized" Rheinland. Later, the Saar voted overwhelmingly to return to Germany under Hitler's leadership. Although Hitler intervened before a plebiscite could be held, there were many Austrians who approved the unification of Austria with powerful and prosperous Germany, including the Cardinal, who the day after the Anschluss, stepped from his car and raised his arm in a fascist salute. Germany's growing pride and prosperity encouraged others. After political negotiations, German troops were permitted to incorporate the 3.5 million Germans who had been assigned to live in Czechoslovakia. The Sudentenland Germans were added to Germany without a shot being fired. All of this was in accord with liberal ideals of self-determination of people. Hitler was not an imperialist, trying to subjugate other people into his German Reich, he just wanted all the Germans. He was a leader of National Liberation. Then, Hitler violated the Wilsonian doctrines when German armies marched into the rump state of Czechoslovakia. He took over Prague and the 7 million Czechs, but even then he was a "liberationist" for he allowed 4 million Slovaks to secede and become independent under Monsignor Tiso, while smaller crumbs were awarded to Hungary and Poland.
The free city of Danzig had voted for a Nazi Party, and the population, overwhelmingly German, sought to enter the Reich. Moreover, East Prussia was separated from the Reich, although its population was mainly German, because the Allies of 1918 wanted to allow Poland access to the sea. Poland was unwilling to compromise on these areas. The Poles did not care if most of the people in these areas preferred Germany. They no longer cared about self-determination or Woodrow Wilson. They wanted to keep what they had. And Britain and France encouraged the Poles to stand firm and avoid compromise. Poland did not yield to German threats in 1939. Then Hitler made a secret deal with Stalin's Soviet Union. In September 1939 Germany launched the blitzkrieg against Poland. As German armies swept so quickly across the borders, Stalin had to move fast to get his share of the Polish pie. By October 1939, Poland was no more.
Britain and France had kept their promise to Poland and declared war against Hitler's Germany. But nothing happened in the West. While in the east Poland was crushed in a month, in the west Sitzkrieg the the word to describe the non-war. After all, did it make any sense for Britain to go to war to save Poland now that Poland had disappeared? Surely, England would come to its senses, avoid war, and recognize the changes in eastern Europe.
But Chamberlain had other ideas. His government now planned to strangle Germany economically, depriving it of essential war materiel by occupying Norway. The Norse government apparently agreed to British occupation. But before the Brits could come, the Germans struck, marching into Denmark, and then with the aid of a Norwegian politician, Vidkun Quisling, the gates were opened to German occupation. The Norwegian fiasco toppled the Chamberlain government, and he was replaced by the more hawkish Churchill.
Next German armies stormed through the Netherlands, Belgium, and into France, - even capturing the unobtainable jewel of WWI, Paris. In weeks the mighty French Army was defeated and the government sued for peace. Meanwhile, many British troops were stranded on the continent being squeezed into an ever smaller pocket near Dunkirk. They were trapped; Hitler could have destroyed them. Instead, he stopped his armies and bombers. He allowed the British to evacuate in an armada of small ships. This was a major gesture of peace. Hitler admired the British; he desired peace; he did not seek to destroy the British Empire. If England would simply give him a free hand in Europe, he would not disturb their empire. This would be a reasonable method to restore peace to the world. Unfortunately, Churchill dismissed such peaceful proposals; the war went on.
Its hope for peace spurned by the British, Germany then began to pursue an alternative strategy. If Hitler could not count upon a unity of interests between the world-wide British Empire and a German dominated Neurope, then Germany would have to attack both the British Isles and its Empire. The latter would be accomplished by support for National Liberation Movements, even if this meant the destruction of the British Empire.
In 1933 when Hitler was first appointed Chancellor, there was a strange conjuncture of interests between the Nazis and Zionists - both sought the removal of Jews from Germany. While in January 1933 few Jews in Germany were Zionists, there numbers grew as Nazis imposed ever more restrictions upon those who remained in the Vaterland. An agreement was signed between the German government and Zionists whereby German Jews who left for Palestine might get credits for some of their possessions in Reichsmarks so they might import German goods to the Middle East. While Jewish organizations of the Left were boycotting German products, Zionists in Palestine were importing them. The agreement succeeded in getting 50,000 Jews out of Germany with products worth some $100 million Reichsmarks.
In Palestine, however, there was rising resentment against the new immigrants, and the anti-Jewish feeling rose and riots against them raged. The leader of this anti-Jewish faction was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and the British authorities sought to keep the peace between the Arabs and Jews.
In the Depression of the 1930s many were dissatisfied with a world one fourth British. As Hitler seemed to revive German pride and prosperity, his nation won admiration, even from unexpected areas. Thus in 1935 Persia changed its name to Iran to alert all that it was not a Semitic nation, but an Aryan one.
In Ireland, the blue shirts of fascism never achieved power, but they had connections to the opposition, Fine Gael Party. Even in England Sir Oswald Mosely's New Party had segued into the British Union of Fascists.
In India, as rumbles of war rose, how would India react? For the likes of George Orwell, who had served as a policeman in Burma, this was not a question, - he and India should fight for the British Empire. But Gandhi had other ideas. He hoped to achieve independence through use of non-violence. Gandhi even urged this method upon the British. Crocker mocks Gandhi's advice: "Gandhi advised that the British should foil the Nazis by surrendering unconditionally to them and thus defeat them through moral example....Winston Churchill (...) had other, more robust ideas."(149) Orwell wrote in opposition to Gandhi's pacifism, but that pacifism may not have been so peaceful within India. The Indian National Congress "sponsored an anti-British `Quit India' campaign that called on Indians to act as saboteurs, blowing up trains, cutting telegraph wires, and rioting."(149) Yet, Crocker generally dismisses as a "bust" the alternative led by the Mayor of Calcutta, Subhas Chandra Bose. Although mayor, because of his antagonism to British rule, the authorities held him under house arrest. With the aid of the German Abwehr, Bose escaped, fled to Afghanistan, and then because of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, flew to Moscow and thence to Berlin. In Berlin, Bose broadcast on German shortwave against the British in India. He also met with Indian POWs in Europe and recruited them to join the German SS. Later in the war, he sailed in a German UBoat to Madagascar, where he transferred to a Japanese UBoat. The war in Asia had spread in December 1941, and now Bose recruited Indian POWs taken by the Japanese to form the Indian National Army. Bose also proclaimed a Provisional Republic of India government, and declared war on Britain and the United States. His government was recognized by several nations including Ireland. By the time the INA reached 40,000 at its height, Japan was in retreat. There was a major battle in Burma between the INA and Indians loyal to Britian. The British won, and Crocker concludes the Bose effort was no real threat.
Yet, others drew different conclusions. Paul Scott, the author of THE JEWEL IN THE CROWN (The Raj Quartette), portrays British officers as confused, shocked, and hurt that their own captured soldiers could turn against them and join the INA. Worse, they feared that they must defeat the INA while still on foreign soil in Burma, for if it reached India proper, all of India might quickly fall into the arms of Bose. The INA was defeated in Burma, and India remained British. Bose died in a plane crash at war's end. Nevertheless, there is a statue of him in Calcutta, and many Indians revere the two men whom they believe led them to independence, Gandhi and Bose.
Nazi policies toward Zionism changed as the 1930s wore on. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem put pressure on the British to halt Jewish immigration. Once war broke out between Britain and Germany in 1939, it was then impossible to ship Jews to Palestine. And with the conquest of Poland, Germany suddenly had millions of more Jews under its sway. What would be the solution? When the war began to turn against the Germans, some proposed an exchange of trucks for Jews. One fierce opponent of any such deal was the Grand Mufti. Not only did he broadcast to the Middle East on German radio, telling his nationals to kill the Jews, not only did he meet on occasion with the German Fuehrer, but the Mufti even went to some of the concentration camps to show support for and admiration for the Nazi policy toward Jews.
And what was happening in the Middle East? Britain ruled Palestine, but France held nearby Lebanon and Syria. In 1940 France was led by Le Marshall in Vichy, a collaborator with Hitler's Reich. Egypt was British, but the war came to North Africa when Mussolini's forces in neighboring Libya invaded Egypt. They did poorly, but were supplanted by Germans under Rommel. Suddenly, the invasion of Egypt was ominously real. Jews in Egypt began planning evacuation to South Africa. The Muslim Brotherhood, and organization formed in the 1920s, admired the Nazis, and were planning to join with Rommel the moment he broke through the British defenses. If the Germans could take Egypt, the Suez Canal would be neutralized, and Palestine (and its Jews) surrounded, and perhaps under Nazi supervision, or worse, that of a restored Grand Mufti. (Look at some of the novels by Lawrence Durrell in the Alexndria Quartet for more on this period).
Even in 2012 Palestinian leaders could be seen raising their arms in the Hitler salute as they continue their national liberation war against Israel and the Jews. The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt remained in the background during the "Arab Spring," but it, with its even more fanatical Muslim allies won 2/3s of the Egyptian vote. Its policies are clearly anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli, with several more anti-s. To a lesser extent, this ideology is true of all the Arab Spring movements. To what extent are these National Liberation Movements a gift of the Third Reich?
The Hitler regime was anti-Jewish, but in its foreign policy, it was not anti-Semitic. The Grand Mufti was a Semite. So were members of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 1940 a pro-Axis revolt occurred in Iraq, led by relatives of Saddam Hussein (he would come to prominence only later). The British crushed this rebellion in Iraq rather quickly, but it was another indication of how volatile the Middle East was. Both Britain and Stalin were unsure about Iran, so both occupied different sectors of that nation in WWII.
The Germans dismembered Yugoslavia, but a "liberated" Croatia was formed. Also a Bosnia. Germans recruited to the SS Muslims from the area who wore fezes atop the standard SS fare. In each of these areas one can see how National Liberation Movements can stem from Nazism as well as from the Left. (For more on the Germans as being anti-Jewish, not anti-Semitic, and in league with many National Liberation Movements, see some of the writings of Prof. Steven Farron of South Africa.)
The American Empire also felt the sting. In the American Philippines, the aged antagonist of American invasion, Aguanaldo, endorsed the new government established by the Japanese. And the Puerto Rican independence movement, harking back to it Spanish origins, preferred a Franco-type island to that imposed by its Anglo conqueror. This movement became more prominent shortly after WWII when some of its members shot up the US Congress and sought to assassinate President Truman.
And here I speculate - but watching an old film with Brad Pitt playing an Austrian who goes to Tibet in the late 1930s, I wondered, was this based upon an individual's desire to explore, or an effort to link a liberated Tibet with the New Germany?
Bottom line - by 1945 Germany, Italy, and its allies were crushed. However, most of the National Liberation Movements it sponsored, encouraged, supported, and allied with continued to simmer, some to grow, and some to rise to leadership of their respective nations. And by 1950, much of the British Empire was gone. Even more by 1960. And by 1970 - what British Empire?
Would this have occurred had Churchill made a deal with Hitler in 1940? Hitler would have had Neurope and a free hand to tackle Stalin without fear of British attack on his rear, and the British might retain their empire.
Today, the British Empire is a memory. Would many of its former colonies be better had they remained British? Would Burma? Ghana? Bangladesh? Sudan? Go down that long list of lands. Are they better off now? It is not always an easy answer. The British Empire that ruled a quarter of the globe performed many good acts to improve the health, the education, the roads, the ports, the railroads of the natives. It challenged the superstitions of the natives and sometimes forced them to abandon their native customs, like slavery, burning widows, cannibalism, etc. It often brought law and reduced corruption. I suspect that many would fondly recall the rule of Britannia, and evoke a sense of loss that it withered away.
But it did not wither. WWII, and especially the German policy of rousing National Liberation Movements meant that people all over the world fought against the British Empire. The question I ask is, had Churchill, or Halifax, or even Chamberlain, agreed to peace in 1940, then German support of National Liberation Movements would not have occurred. And the Empire would have been stronger. Perhaps, it would still rule one fourth of the globe. There might be some good in that. And instead of making a deal with the devil to defeat Hitler, the British Prime Minister would have made a deal with the other devil to defeat Stalin.
Yet, there is something that we dislike about this proposal. If Hitler had defeated Stalin, Germany would have ended far stronger than before. Jews would no longer live in Europe. Britain, Empire and all, would be a junior partner in a National Socialist world, which might even extend to Tibet.
Churchill sought to save the British Empire when he refused all peace feelers with Hitler. He risked the empire to keep Britain free. It was a gamble. Britain won the war, but lost her empire. The Nazis lost, but some of their National Liberation Movements succeeded and some continue to this day.
As the British Empire recedes into history, we can wonder at the island that ruled so many parts of so many continents - and ruled them well.