Great Britain between the World Wars - Article Example

The Great Britain between the World Wars The inter-World War period was an important turning point for the Great Britain despite being the toughest time marred with political and economic down turns. Important to note was the Great Britain’s great interest in the Middle East at a time of expansionism. The Great Britain motive to establish leadership in Middle East was to achieve multinational development by taking advantage of the economic potential of these countries. Evidently, the Middle East was one of the regions that lacked leadership and this had led to increase in conflict within the country hence undermining its economic potential. Regions such as South Asia and Palestine had fertile lands, while Iraq was rich with oil. Therefore, shortly after the First World War, the Great Britain invaded the Middle East region with the aim of taking control of the land. However, the Ottoman led regions posed a great challenge for the country and the natives were greatly resistive of any foreign control. The Great Britain engaged its military and aircraft power to seize the region and resist any opposition. Creating inter-agencies and working jointly with other groups helped the country to overcome resistance. In spite of this, the effectiveness of the Great Britain to pursue its goals in the Middle East still remains in question. Apparently, the Great Britain mission in the Middle East was effective despite the high level of opposition that the country experienced while pushing their national goals within these territories. The interwar period was a time of political insurgence as super power nations sought to launch their expansionism strategy. Many developed countries including the Great Britain initiated expansionism as they felt that it was a time for the countries to accelerate its economic development and compete with other super power countries. The Great Britain was among countries that felt that capturing ungoverned territories would the best approach to accelerate their growth. At the end of the First World War, the Great Britain targeted the Middle East countries includes South Asia and Iraq, some of the countries that were still struggling with political instabilities (Fromkin 383-415). Another drive for expansionism was the adverse effects of the World War, a time when countries were recovering from economic frustrations that came after heavy investment in the war. Britain aimed at taking over the leadership in Middle East not only to take advantage of the natural resources but also to neutralize the threat that was expected from this region. To achieve this, the country used a wide range of approaches including collaboration with the people, formation of inter-agencies and use of military power. Long before the First World War Period, large part of the Middle East comprised of the Ottoman which had started many centuries ago. Therefore, by the Great Britain was invading the Middle East, the Ottoman Empire was already established. Therefore, the government met opposition from Ottoman as they tried to penetrate the region. Ottoman was quick to understand the motive of Britain to take leadership of the region and to control all the natural resource. This marks an important time in history when the Middle East had no clear boundaries and there was little evidence of statism. At this time, the concern of the people was to establish self-ruled dynasty where the people were independent of external rule. Therefore, countries such as Egypt, Palestine, and Iraq were already seeing the hope of becoming independent entities after the First World War (Fromkin 383-415). The Ottoman Empire was in the verge of collapsing, and the people had high hopes of establishing clear boundaries and becoming Free states. Apparently, the Great Britain was anticipating high level of rebellion from the people while attempting to establish colonials in this region. The ability of the Great Britain to co-work with the people of Middle East to frustrate the Ottoman Empire was a sign of their efficient strategy to pursue their own goals. In 1914, the Ottoman Empire Sultan declared the established of the holy army that would wage severe attacks against invading countries such as France and Great Britain. In various occasions, such as in the war in Gallipolis, Britain was defeated and had to retreat later. In 1917, the Great Britain used its national resources, which was much more than those possessed by the Ottoman and equipped their troops with modern weapons. The war in Sinai, Egypt and Baghdad became important turning points as Britain was slowly capturing the Middle East. However, the war turned to worse when Germany joined hands with the Ottoman to drive away Britain in Gaza (Fromkin 383-400). The British government however was persistent and strengthened its military by collaborating with New Zealand and Australian in conquering the land. Therefore, the effectiveness of the Great Britain in its takeover in the Middle East can be attributed to its effective collaboration with other states as one way of protecting its strategic goals. The defeat of the Ottoman Empire illuminates the concept of efficiency as pertain to British expansionism strategy. The British government opposition from the Ottoman leadership was becoming a threat to its political goals in Middle East. However, the government was swift in taking measures to control the insurgence of opposition. To win against the Ottoman Empire, the Great Britain formed a union with the Asians in Palestine to help to destabilize the Ottoman Empire. The British general invited the Asians living in Palestine to provide back in the war to push away the leadership of Ottoman (Fromkin 383-400). In return, the British government promised the Asians that they would help them achieve independence. The give-take approach was among the most effective approaches that the government used to conquer opposition. Since the Palestine people supported the Great Britain, they could anticipate less opposition and better power to conquer the country. With this support, the Great Britain was able to destabilize the Ottoman power and become a rule in the land. At the battle of Megiddo, the government easily destroyed the Ottoman armies with the support of Arab allies and strong military command. This achievement was an important to the Great Britain as the Ottoman Empire became their new territory. Another effective strategy that the British government engaged to control the Middle East was ability to neutralize the internal conflicts that were looming shortly after the Independence. The popular Palestine-Israel Conflict was at its peak at the time when the Great Britain was invading the Middle East. The Jews of Israel felt that there was need to establish their own state where they would appoint democratic leadership. Their idea was to acquire Palestine, what they believed was their forefather land, and to establish an Israel state. Therefore, they entered the country and began land and installing leadership within the Palestine land. The Arabs became conscious of the Zionists motive and decided to resist this land dispossession (Townshend 187). Therefore, there was threat of internal conflict which would destabilize British leadership in the region. The British engaged the two sides with contradicting promises to prevent them from engaging in war. To the Israel, the British government promised that it would help them to set up their own state in Palestine. This was contradictory to the promise that the promise for independence that the Britain had issued earlier to the Arabs. While this became a source of greater internal conflict between the two groups, it helped the Great Britain to maintain strict control in the Middle East by keeping internal conflicts at Bay. The use of its multinational capabilities contributes to its ability to take control in countries such as Iraq, where there was higher level of opposition from the people. After the world war, the Iraq people from all sides were resistant of any rule as they felt that they had been promised independent after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In 1920, the British government acted as a multination control by establishing Iraq as a democratic state. The Great Britain gave the country the power to elect a leader who would rule from Baghdad. However, the country remained under British control. The main aim of the British government was to maintain occupancy in Iraq to continue protecting their goals in the Middle East. The agreement was that the British Army would remain to provide training for the Iraq Army. However, the Iraq government still felt that the British were under control and they were more determined to rise against this command (Murray 209-264). The Iraq Army became the source of threat as they became the warriors of Independence with an aim of pushing out the British in the country. However, providing democracy had great important to Great Britain as they restored peace and expected less control from the people of Iraq. Therefore, this strategy ensured that Great Britain could peacefully pursue their goals while camping in Iraq. The use of Aircrafts and heavy military equipment in middle was a manifestation of the Great Britain’s power and commitment to effectively pursue their political goals. Particularly, the Great Britain deployed heavy air power in Iraq to protect themselves from the threats of Nazis. By the time of the Second World War, Great Britain was worried that the Nazis would form their Military base in Iraq, which would greatly threaten their security (Liddell 139-161). Therefore, the British government was prompt to use its resource capabilities to drive away threat at a time of war. The government also felt that there was need to protect the Iraq resources such as oil, an issue that has depicted Great Britain as exploiter. Their aim seems to have been control of oil reserves besides its pro-active approach against Nazi attackers. Critically, the ability of Great Britain to use air power was essential in protecting both Iraq and its own country. Although the Iraq people were resistive, it was easy to control them with such an amount of power and military resources. However, the effectiveness of the Great Britain’s operations in the Middle East comes into question. First, the Great Britain’s strategies to control Palestine were easily thwarted by the persistent opposition by both Jews and Arabs who felt that they had been betrayed. What followed was the withdrawal of Great Britain as UN council sought to partition Palestine in effort to restore peace and resolve the Palestine-Israel conflict. Secondly, the democracy that Great Britain instituted in Iraq was short-lived and autocratic leadership set in as soon as Britain left (Rayburn 29-40). Also, the British government was encountered by great opposition that led to the death of many of its armies, which a setback for their operations in countries such as Iraq. However, it is clear that the Great Britain left the Middle East soon after the value of staying there was lost. Besides, analysis shows that the Middle East became a more stable territory that helped Great Britain realize its goals through increased benefits of trade with countries such as Mesopotamia. To this extent, it would be possible to term Great Britain operations in the Middle as successfully accomplished. In conclusion, the Great Britain successfully integrated joint, inter-agency, and multinational capabilities in achieving its goals in the Middle East. The British government worked along with other states in liberating Middle East from the Ottoman armies, hence providing it with a peaceful period to exploit the potential within these countries. Secondly, the government used its power to occupy Iraq and institute democratic structures that became bridges for their goals in the region. The use of heavy military power in the country helped them to take control of security and protect their own countries from external threats. Although the level of opposition was high, the Great Britain leadership was smart and maneuvered around to find solutions that served their course. While critics perceive the Great Britain as a failure during its operations in the Middle East, there is load of evidence that the country benefited from its activities in the country. Besides, it was possible for the government to provide self-determinism to the people by forming lasting relationships that would foster economic alliance with these countries. On this ground, though challenging, the Great Britain mission in the Middle East during the inter-World War period was successful. Works Cited Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace. New York: Henry Holt, 1989. Print. Liddell Hart, B. H. “Air and Empire: The History of Air Control,” in the British Way in Warfare. London: Faber, 1932. Print. Murray, Williamson, and Jim Lacey, eds. The Making of Peace: Rulers, States, and the Aftermath of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Print. Rayburn, Joel. “The Last Exit from Iraq,” Foreign Affairs 85, no. 2 (March-April 2006). 29-40. Townshend, Charles. “Civilization and ‘Frightfulness’: Air Control in the Middle East between the Wars,” in Warfare, Diplomacy and Politics: Essays in Honour of A. J. P. Taylor, edited by Chris Wrigley. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1986. Print. Read More