The end of Empire

Model answer

A is Ghana (the Gold Coast) and B is Kenya.

Model answer

Source A is useful because it shows how the Second World War hardened the demands of the Indian independence movement. Gandhi, who was famous for patient non-violent protest, now called for 'Do or Die' and said 'We shall either free India or die in the attempt'. This shows a new urgency: Congress no longer wanted gradual reform but an immediate end to British rule. My knowledge explains why. In 1939 the Viceroy had declared war on India's behalf without consulting Indian leaders, and in 1942 the Cripps Mission offered only dominion status after the war. With Japan having taken Singapore and Burma, Britain looked weak, and Congress believed this was the moment to press for freedom.

The provenance adds to its usefulness. It is Gandhi's own speech to the Congress Committee on the day it passed the Quit India resolution, so it shows exactly how the leader of the movement wanted to inspire his followers. Because its purpose was to rouse people to action, its language is emotional - British rule is called 'slavery' - so it tells us more about the mood and aims of Congress than about the reality of British rule.

However, it is limited because it shows intentions, not results. The next day Gandhi and the Congress leaders were arrested and Congress was banned; protests turned violent and were crushed, with tens of thousands arrested. With Congress leaders in prison, Jinnah's Muslim League, which opposed Quit India, grew stronger, which helped lead to partition in 1947. The source also ignores Indians who responded differently, such as the 2.5 million who volunteered for the Indian Army, or Bose, who fought alongside Japan.

Overall, Source A is very useful for showing how the war made Congress demand immediate independence, but an historian would need other sources to understand the effects of the campaign.

Model answer

One similarity is that in both cases Britain was isolated and found it could not impose its will by force because powerful countries were against it. In the American War of Independence Britain faced not only the colonists but also France, which joined in 1778 after the American victory at Saratoga, followed by Spain and the Dutch Republic. At Yorktown in 1781 a French fleet prevented the Royal Navy rescuing Cornwallis, who had to surrender, and Britain recognised American independence in 1783. At Suez in 1956 Britain and France attacked Egypt after Nasser nationalised the canal, but the USA, Britain's closest ally, opposed them. Eisenhower refused financial help while the pound fell, the UN condemned the attack and the USSR made threats, so Britain had to accept a ceasefire on 6 November and withdraw. Both showed the limits of British power when it lacked allies.

A second similarity is that both divided opinion at home, brought down the Prime Minister and forced Britain to rethink its imperial role. In the 1770s Whigs such as Edmund Burke urged conciliation with the colonists, and Lord North resigned in March 1782 after the defeat at Yorktown. In 1956 the Labour Party, newspapers such as The Observer and protesters at the 'Law not War' rally opposed the attack, two ministers resigned, and Eden himself resigned in January 1957. Afterwards Britain changed direction. After 1783 it turned its attention to India, Canada and later Australia. After Suez it accepted that it could not act without American support, Macmillan rebuilt the 'special relationship', and decolonisation speeded up, with Ghana independent in 1957 and the 'Wind of Change' speech in 1960. Both crises marked a turning point in the history of the Empire.

Model answer

Government decisions have played an important part in both the growth and the decline of Britain's empire. However, for much of the period the Empire grew through private enterprise and the search for economic resources, with governments following rather than leading, and its decline was driven by war, economic weakness and nationalism as much as by government choices.

In the medieval period, government meant the decisions of kings. Henry II invaded Ireland in 1171, with papal approval, to control the Anglo-Norman lords who had gone there, and his government created an English lordship that lasted for centuries. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Crown encouraged expansion, but mostly by licensing others: Elizabeth I gave Raleigh a patent to settle America in 1584 and chartered the East India Company in 1600. The Navigation Acts from 1651 protected colonial trade, and Cromwell's 'Western Design' captured Jamaica in 1655.

Yet in this period economic resources and individuals were often more important. Sugar from Barbados and tobacco from Virginia made colonies profitable, and much of the slave trade was run by merchants. In India, the Empire was won by a private company: Robert Clive's victory at Plassey in 1757 gave the East India Company control of Bengal. Government only took over after the Indian Rebellion of 1857, with the Government of India Act of 1858.

In the nineteenth century government became more important. Disraeli bought shares in the Suez Canal in 1875 and made Victoria Empress of India in 1876; Gladstone's government occupied Egypt in 1882; and Salisbury's government took part in the Scramble for Africa after the Berlin Conference of 1884-85. Even so, individuals such as Cecil Rhodes, whose British South Africa Company took over the lands later called Rhodesia, often pushed the government into expansion, and technology such as quinine and the Maxim gun made conquest possible.

Government decisions also caused decline. Parliament's decision to tax the American colonies through the Stamp Act of 1765 provoked the Revolution and the loss of the Thirteen Colonies. In the twentieth century Attlee's Labour government decided to leave India in 1947, Eden's decision to invade Egypt in 1956 ended in humiliation, and Macmillan and Iain Macleod chose to speed up African independence after 1959. In 1968 the government announced the withdrawal from 'East of Suez'. However, these decisions were responses to other pressures: the Second World War had left Britain bankrupt, nationalist leaders such as Gandhi and Nkrumah had made colonial rule unworkable, and the USA opposed the Empire.

In conclusion, government was rarely the main driving force behind the growth of the Empire before the nineteenth century, when trade and individuals led. It became more important in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and after 1945 governments decided how quickly Britain withdrew. But those decisions were forced on them by economic weakness and nationalism. Overall, economic resources were a more important factor than government, which usually acted to protect trade or to adapt to changes it could not control.