Imperial Political Issues, 1922–29

  • Partha Sarathi Gupta
Part of the Cambridge Commonwealth Series book series


The traditional official aims of British strategy and diplomacy was to maintain the security of Britain’s imperial and commercial sea lanes, and also to prevent any one power from dominating the Continent. After 1919 the authorities were aware that the dominions were reluctant to get involved in a European war, and that Britain’s own ability to maintain a large defence establishment had been reduced.1 Yet, at the Imperial Conference of 1923 it was assumed that the protection of the sea lanes still remained the responsibility of the British Navy.2 Consequently, official policy continued to advocate the retention of British paramountcy in West Asia—in Egypt because of the Suez Canal, in Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf because the Navy needed the oil resources.3


Foreign Policy Trade Union International Dept Suez Canal Labour Party 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. K. E. Miller, Socialism and Foreign Policy(The Hague, 1967), p. 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. H. R. Winkler, ‘The Emergence of a Labour Foreign Policy in Great Britain, 1918–29’, Journal of Modern History xxviii, 247–58.Google Scholar
  3. J. C. Hurewitz(ed.), Diplomacy in the Near and Middle East: a documentary record, 1914–56(Princeton, 1956) n 129.Google Scholar
  4. A. B. Keith, Responsible Government in the Dominions(Oxford, 1928 ed.), n 115–51.Google Scholar
  5. D. W. Harkness, The Restless Dominion(London, 1969) pp. 115–21.Google Scholar
  6. J. H. Thomas, ‘Labour and the Empire’, World Today, May 1924, pp. 487–8.Google Scholar
  7. H. B. Neatby, W.L. Mackenzie King, n(London, 1963) pp. 33–40.Google Scholar
  8. H. G. Wells, 25 Apr 1924, quoted in M. Olivier(ed.), Sydney Olivier: Letters and selected writings(London, 1948) p. 157.Google Scholar
  9. A. A. Purcell and J. Hallsworth, Report on Labour Conditions in India(London, 1928) pp. 42–3.Google Scholar
  10. S. Gopal, Viceroyalty of Lord Irwin(Oxford, 1957) pp. 12–3; 16–7.Google Scholar
  11. P. S. Gupta, ‘British Labour and the Indian Left’, in B. R. Nanda(ed.), Socialism in India(Delhi, 1971) pp. 93–6.Google Scholar
  12. J Lovell and B. C. Roberts, A Short History of the Trades Union Congress(London, 1968) p. 112.Google Scholar
  13. J R. MacDonald, ‘The New Indian Constitution’, Nation(New York), 4 Jan 1928, p. 14.Google Scholar
  14. G. Bennett, ‘Settlers and Politics in Kenya’, in V. T. Harlow and E. Chilver(eds), History of East Africa, ii (Oxford, 1965) 294–8.Google Scholar
  15. R. E. Gregory, India and East Africa(Oxford, 1971) passim.Google Scholar
  16. I. Davies, African Trade Unions(Harmondsworth, 1966) p. 58.Google Scholar
  17. B. A. Ogot, ‘British Administration in the Central Nyanza District of Kenya’, Journal of African History, iv(1963) 260–66.Google Scholar
  18. J. Middleton, ‘Kenya: changes in African life, 1912–45’, in Harlow and Chilver(eds.), op. cit., pp. 356–66.Google Scholar
  19. R. I. Rotberg, ‘The Federation Movement in British East and Central Africa, 1889–1953’, Journal of Commonwealth Political Studies, ii (1964) 144–8.Google Scholar
  20. Labour and Socialist International, The Colonial Problem(London, 1928) p. 191.Google Scholar
  21. E. Colson, ‘African Society at the time of the scramble’, in L. H. Gann and P. Duignan(eds.), Colonialism in Africa, 1(Cambridge, 1969) ch. i passim.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Partha Sarathi Gupta 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • Partha Sarathi Gupta
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HistoryUniversity of DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations