What are some good ways/ or literature that pulls the unpleasantness of the British Empire into histories of defence or geostrategy in the 20th Century?

by Unseasonal_Jacket

Im studying a lot of naval and grand strategy/policy style history of the 20th century, especially the interwar period.

The British Empire is integral to the history of the Royal Navy, in some ways providing both its requirements and role.

Yet what strikes me is how absent modern history of empire is from the analysis. Moral failures and unpleasantness of Empire rarely effects the naval interpretation of the need to defend it. In my opinion naval history often falls into implicitly accepting the validity of the British Empire. Geostrategic grounds drown out other issues.

So 3 linked questions

What are some good ways of using histories of Empire, which i assume suggest Empire was not a nice thing, to critique organisations such as the navy implicitly linked to its existence?

Are there some good works that already do this? What are some good modern history of the British Empire that are a good place to start in understanding the 20th century British Empire?

Starwarsnerd222

Greetings! This is an interesting trio of questions you have put forward, and I believe you may have touched on a historiographical concept which hasn't been written about too much in recent years. Let's see what light I can attempt to shine on the situation.

Firstly, this bit of the question:

Moral failures and unpleasantness of Empire rarely effects the naval interpretation of the need to defend it. In my opinion naval history often falls into implicitly accepting the validity of the British Empire. Geostrategic grounds drown out other issues.

Most histories of the British Empire sadly do not treat the Royal Navy as much more than a potent tool which Whitehall deployed to enforce its will (with varying success) to areas already under its control (or those daring to oppose the agents of Britannia's agenda elsewhere). However, there is something of an argument to be made for why historians ignore the "moral" aspect of Empire when talking about the Royal Navy. By drowning (excuse the pun) the narrative of the Royal Navy with arguments as to whether they "complied" or "resisted" with the moral atrocities carried out in the name of Empire, historians often risk going down dangerous moral lines of inquiry as opposed to the more objective-minded (and source-heavy) geostrategic/geopolitical side of the Royal Navy. There can be no question that the Royal Navy at times was the agent and method of execution for such atrocities, but it was not uncommon at the time for nations to wield such assets in morally ambiguous acts. The French Empire under Napoleon as an example was feared for its troops' and marshals (who plundered and pillaged their way through much of the Iberian Peninsula, as well as during the short-lived Egyptian campaign).

Instead I invite you to view what I have termed the "power organ" theory: that the Royal Navy was simply a tool for the British Empire's expansion, security, and in some respects, prosperity. Duty to the Navy and the state came before personal opinions on the Empire itself, and the Navy sailors/admirals of the1800s were no exception to this rule. If the British Empire was the global policeman of the 19th century, then the Royal Navy was its Scotland Yard; the force which meant business and was not averse to delivering London's will through the threat of bombardment. Critiquing the Royal Navy through the moral lens of Empire is a difficult task in that respect, because it was not as if though the Admiralty could overrule parliament on any larger foreign policies claims (though there were certainly attempts). The secondary literature nowadays generally does not stray too far into the whole "good Empire, bad Empire" debate, because its almost anathema to conducting any holistic and historically-supported investigation of this world power. Besides, if one goes down the whole "accepting validity of Empire" argument, then the Royal Navy's performance is but a mere footnote in the annals of other sociopolitical (and land-based) atrocities the Empire carried out.

I apologise if the paragraphs above may seem a tad confusing, but the short of it is that using a pre-set "moral" history of Empire (whether it was good or bad), to critique the role of the Royal Navy is inherently flawed because it inevitably brings up biases which influence the light in which the Navy is (perhaps unfairly) judged. As for book recommendations on British geopolitical strategy and the history of Empire (going even farther back than the 20th century), here are my trio of choices:

  • Unfinished Empire: The Global Expansion of Britain by John Darwin: This is more of a "whirlwind" tour of the Empire's history through thematic lenses such as establishing Empire, ruling Empire, the culture of Empire, and of course the defense of Empire. I wholeheartedly recommend this excellent publication if you can get your hands on it, since Darwin manages to insightfully explore the moral nuances which shaped the British Empire's foreign policy (in which the deployment of the Royal Navy was a key part).
  • The Empire Project: The Rise and Fall of the British World System 1830 - 1970 by John Darwin: Consider the previous recommendation as a "starter" to this much larger and comprehensive work by Darwin (who is himself a pre-eminent Imperial historian). This one is much more geopolitically minded than the previous one, and focuses more heavily on the theories/circumstances which shaped how the Empire was administered, expanded, and defended during the so-called "Pax Britannica". The Royal Navy is as such featured more here, as a component of British geostrategic debates and an integral part of maintaining imperial hegemony.
  • Admirals: The Naval Commanders who made Britain great by Andrew Lambert: Bit of an older read this one, but Andrew Lambert is an expert when it comes to the Royal Navy. This book shines a thorough light on some of the more accomplished and influential figures who not only shaped the Royal Navy to become the effective agent of Empire that it was, but also were critical in keeping British interests alive across the oceans. I recommend this one because the sections on admirals who served in the 1800s-1900s touch heavily on their actions in keeping the "great liner" of Empire afloat (a phrase Churchill used), though some of them also preferred maintaining the status quo rather than actively seeking opportunities to expand Britain's power.

Hope this brief response helps with your question, and feel free to ask any followups as you see fit!

Edit: Andrew Lambert is very much still alive and teaching! I (in some state of reduced memory) confused him for a former British historian who he credited in his foreword).