This period witnessed a transformation in Britain’s imperial structure, with economic, political and cultural shifts reshaping colonial relationships and public attitudes.
Development of Imperial Trade and Commerce
Post-WWI Reconstruction and Imperial Economic Strategy
In the aftermath of the First World War, Britain faced a severely weakened economy, burdened by debt and reliant on the empire for reconstruction. The imperial government viewed the colonies as a vital economic resource:
Empire Marketing Board (1926) was established to promote goods from the empire and encourage intra-imperial trade.
The Ottawa Conference (1932) reinforced the policy of Imperial Preference, aiming to protect the empire’s markets from foreign competition through preferential tariffs.
These measures aimed to:
Stimulate economic recovery by securing raw materials (e.g. rubber, cotton, tea) from colonies.
Boost British exports by ensuring a loyal market within the empire.
However, this also bred resentment in colonies, which felt economically exploited and excluded from decision-making processes that disproportionately favoured British producers.
The Role of Tariffs and Trade Policies
Imperial Preference emerged as a response to global economic shifts and increasing competition from the United States and Japan:
Tariffs on non-imperial goods were introduced to protect British and Dominion markets.
Colonies were expected to supply primary commodities and serve as captive markets for British manufactured goods.
While intended to stabilise imperial economic links, these policies often had mixed effects, particularly during the depression when demand for goods collapsed and trade imbalances grew.
Economic Impact of the Global Depression and War
Consequences for Colonies
The Great Depression of the 1930s had devastating effects across the empire:
Export revenues plummeted: Commodity prices collapsed (e.g. cocoa in West Africa, cotton in India), leading to widespread poverty.
Colonial administrations were forced to cut public spending, exacerbating underdevelopment and fuelling discontent.
Specific examples:
In India, falling agricultural prices left millions of farmers indebted.
In the Caribbean, economic hardship led to labour strikes and unrest, including the 1937 riots in Jamaica.
Colonial governments, largely conservative and fiscally cautious, failed to introduce effective welfare schemes or stimulate growth, increasing reliance on coercion and repression to manage dissent.
Impact on Britain
The depression also severely affected the metropole:
Unemployment soared to over 3 million by the early 1930s.
Imperial investments were seen as vital to recovery, reinforcing calls to extract greater value from the empire.
However, the growing cost of maintaining military and administrative control strained British finances, contributing to reassessment of imperial priorities.
Gandhi and the Indian Independence Movement
Civil Disobedience and Nationalism
Mohandas Gandhi became a central figure in India’s resistance to British rule during the interwar years, promoting a philosophy of non-violent civil disobedience:
Non-Cooperation Movement (1920–22): Encouraged Indians to boycott British goods, institutions and honours.
Salt March (1930): Gandhi walked 240 miles to Dandi to produce salt illegally, defying British monopoly laws. It became a powerful symbol of resistance.
Quit India Movement (1942): Although just outside the interwar period, its roots lay in growing interwar dissatisfaction. It marked a final push for British withdrawal.
These actions:
Gained international attention, particularly in the US and among other colonial peoples.
Radicalised Indian politics, shifting support away from constitutional reform towards full independence.
Forced the British to increasingly rely on emergency powers and imprisonment, undermining their claim to moral authority.
British Response
Despite initial refusal to concede major reforms, the British were forced to respond with incremental constitutional changes:
Government of India Act 1935: Granted limited provincial autonomy but withheld full self-rule.
These changes were often viewed as inadequate and paternalistic, and failed to quell growing demands for complete independence.
Influence of Colonial Administrators
Reformers and Conservatives
Colonial administrators played a central role in shaping or resisting reform:
Some, like Lord Irwin (Viceroy of India), supported cautious reform and attempted to engage with Gandhi during the Round Table Conferences.
Others, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, adopted a more authoritarian stance, prioritising control over development.
Their influence depended heavily on local context, personalities, and perceived strategic importance of the territory.
Administrative Challenges
In many colonies, British officials adopted a policy of ‘indirect rule’, especially in Africa, working through local elites.
While this preserved stability, it often entrenched inequality and obstructed reform, as traditional structures were co-opted rather than modernised.
Administrators were typically drawn from an elite class with imperial convictions, and many were resistant to the idea of democratic empowerment for colonial subjects.
Portrayals of Imperialism in British Popular Culture
Media and Messaging
The interwar years saw imperialism heavily promoted in British culture through various media:
Films: Productions like The Four Feathers or Sanders of the River portrayed empire as a noble, civilising mission.
Schoolbooks: Imperial history was taught with a strong emphasis on British heroism and superiority.
Newspapers and magazines: Often celebrated imperial events such as royal tours and military victories, reinforcing national pride.
Exhibitions: The Empire Exhibition (1924–25) and Empire Marketing Board posters visually glorified colonial products and peoples.
These portrayals served to:
Legitimise empire to the British public.
Mask the growing challenges and discontent within the colonies.
Promote a sense of shared identity across the empire, even as this ideal became increasingly strained.
Underlying Ideologies
Cultural depictions were often infused with racial hierarchies and paternalism, portraying colonised peoples as:
Exotic
Childlike
In need of British guidance
Such narratives contributed to normalising imperial dominance, but by the late 1930s, critical voices (e.g. George Orwell, E.M. Forster) began to emerge in literature and journalism, challenging these tropes.
Shifting Public Attitudes Towards Empire
Tensions Between Pride, Cost and Doubt
Though many Britons retained a strong sense of imperial pride, attitudes began to diversify:
The economic cost of empire, especially during the depression, led to increased questioning of its value.
The brutal methods used to suppress unrest (e.g. Amritsar massacre in 1919, though covered in a different topic) shocked segments of the public and undermined moral confidence.
Christian and liberal groups increasingly raised moral objections to imperialism.
By the late 1930s:
Working-class Britons, especially in urban areas suffering from unemployment, were less engaged with imperial ideals.
Left-wing political movements and some parts of the press began to advocate for greater autonomy and self-government in the colonies.
Imperial Identity in Decline
While the British state still actively promoted empire, a growing number of people saw it as:
A financial burden
Politically outdated
Ethically problematic in the modern, post-WWI world
This tension between traditional imperial pride and emerging doubts would eventually lay the groundwork for the post-war acceleration of decolonisation. The interwar period thus marked a crucial phase of transition in Britain’s relationship with its empire—economically exploited yet politically contested, proudly displayed yet increasingly questioned.
FAQ
Women played an increasingly prominent role in anti-imperial activism across the empire during the interwar years, particularly in nationalist movements in India and Africa. In India, female leaders like Sarojini Naidu and Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay were instrumental in civil disobedience campaigns, including participation in the Salt March and boycotts of British goods. These women not only organised protests and marches but also raised awareness internationally, challenging the gendered norms of both Indian and British societies. In Africa and the Caribbean, women led food riots and labour protests, often driven by economic hardship and exploitation. Though these acts were often informal or grassroots in nature, they revealed the critical role women played in resisting colonial authority. Women's activism challenged colonial assumptions that only elite men engaged in politics and helped build broader, more inclusive anti-colonial coalitions. Despite their significance, their contributions were often marginalised in official narratives, both by colonial authorities and later male-led nationalist movements.
During the 1930s, as Britain experienced severe economic challenges due to the Great Depression, the government sought to justify continued imperial control by emphasising the economic utility and strategic importance of the empire. Politicians and officials argued that the empire provided a protected market for British exports, sources of raw materials, and a vital outlet for surplus capital. The introduction of Imperial Preference at the Ottawa Conference was framed as a necessary step to protect British industry and workers. Propaganda promoted the idea of the empire as a mutual economic community, using tools like the Empire Marketing Board to build support for imperial trade. Educational materials, films, and public speeches reinforced the notion that the empire was a key element in national recovery. The government also invoked imperial unity and loyalty, especially from the Dominions, as essential to preserving Britain’s global status. These justifications, however, increasingly conflicted with the reality of colonial discontent and rising anti-imperialist sentiment.
Interwar imperial economic policies had a mixed and often detrimental impact on the long-term development of colonies. While some infrastructure development occurred—particularly in transportation and export-oriented agriculture—it was usually driven by British commercial interests rather than the needs of local populations. Policies such as tariff barriers and commodity export dependence locked many colonies into producing raw materials for British markets, limiting industrial diversification and self-sufficiency. The global depression worsened these structural inequalities, as colonies were hit hard by collapsing commodity prices and had little access to credit or public investment. Britain’s fiscal conservatism during this period meant minimal reinvestment in colonial health, education, or welfare. This created enduring legacies of underdevelopment, poverty, and economic dependency. Furthermore, the perception that colonial economies existed solely to benefit Britain fuelled nationalist resentment and contributed to the push for post-war independence. The interwar period thus entrenched patterns of economic inequality that persisted well into the post-colonial era.
The Dominions—Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and others—held increasing influence over imperial economic decisions during the interwar period. Their economic importance grew due to their contributions to post-WWI recovery and Britain’s reliance on agricultural imports and raw materials. These semi-autonomous states pushed for policies that benefited their own producers, particularly during the Ottawa Conference of 1932, where they successfully lobbied for Imperial Preference to shield their economies from global competition. The Dominions favoured tariffs on non-imperial goods, which protected their industries but sometimes harmed Britain's trade with external partners. Furthermore, the Dominions advocated for more equal partnerships within the empire, rejecting the idea of economic subordination to Britain. This assertiveness underscored their growing national identity and economic maturity. While they still cooperated within the imperial structure, their influence increasingly shaped Britain’s approach to trade and demonstrated a shift towards a more decentralised economic empire during the interwar years.
Imperial exhibitions in the interwar years were major propaganda tools designed to reinforce Britain's imperial authority and promote economic ties within the empire. One of the most prominent examples was the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley (1924–25), which attracted millions of visitors and showcased goods, cultures, and industries from across the empire. These exhibitions served multiple purposes: they celebrated the supposed unity and strength of the empire, promoted imperial trade, and encouraged loyalty among British citizens. By displaying colonial products—such as tea, rubber, spices, and cotton—organisers highlighted the empire's economic value and Britain’s role as a central coordinator. The exhibitions also perpetuated paternalistic narratives, portraying Britain as the benevolent leader guiding less developed colonies. In doing so, they masked the growing political and economic tensions within the empire. While hugely popular, these events functioned less as accurate reflections of empire and more as carefully managed exercises in imperial image-making and economic persuasion.
Practice Questions
To what extent did the Great Depression undermine Britain’s economic relationship with its empire in the interwar period?
The Great Depression significantly weakened Britain’s economic ties with its empire, exposing the vulnerabilities of colonial economies dependent on exporting raw materials. Falling commodity prices devastated colonies like India and West Africa, fostering resentment towards British economic policies. Although Britain attempted to strengthen imperial trade through tariffs and Imperial Preference, these measures often favoured British producers and failed to resolve colonial hardship. Economic discontent contributed to nationalist agitation, particularly in India, where economic grievances fuelled support for independence. Therefore, while attempts were made to preserve imperial cohesion, the depression ultimately deepened fractures within the empire’s economic system.
How significant was Gandhi’s role in changing attitudes towards British rule in India between the wars?
Gandhi played a pivotal role in reshaping Indian and British attitudes towards colonial rule through his philosophy of non-violent resistance. Campaigns such as the Non-Cooperation Movement and Salt March mobilised mass Indian support and drew international attention to colonial injustices. Gandhi’s approach challenged British moral authority, forcing them to reconsider their strategies and prompting limited reforms, such as the 1935 Government of India Act. His leadership unified diverse social groups and intensified the call for independence. Although British policymakers remained divided, Gandhi’s actions undeniably shifted the debate from reform to liberation, marking a significant change in imperial dynamics.
