The Empire Project: The Rise and Fall of the British World-System, 1830–1970

by John Darwin

The British Empire, wrote Adam Smith, 'has hitherto been not an empire, but the project of an empire' and John Darwin offers a magisterial global history of the rise and fall of that great imperial project. The British Empire, he argues, was much more than a group of colonies ruled over by a scattering of British expatriates until eventual independence. It was, above all, a global phenomenon. Its power derived rather less from the assertion of imperial authority than from the fusing together of three different kinds of empire: the settler empire of the 'white dominions'; the commercial empire of the City of London; and 'Greater India' which contributed markets, manpower and military muscle. This unprecedented history charts how this intricate imperial web was first strengthened, then weakened and finally severed on the rollercoaster of global economic, political and geostrategic upheaval on which it rode from beginning to end.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, British Literature, World History, Politics, 20th Century, 19th Century

816 pages, Hardcover

First published November 1, 2009

About the author

Gareth John Darwin, CBE, FBA, is a British historian who from 1984 to 2019 was the Beit Lecturer in Commonwealth History at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford. Prior to his appointment there he was a lecturer in history at the University of Reading between 1972 and 1984.

Reviews

[Kaśyap · Rating 5 out of 5]

The main thesis of this book seems to be that British imperialism is very different from any other imperialisms before it. The author prefers to use the terms “Empire project” and “British world system” rather than Empire and imperialism. It is rather a kind of liberal imperialism of free trade. The British Empire is not a planned project with a coherent vision that was willed and ruled from London but it is rather an unplanned organic mix of disparate “empires” and interests of various classes shaped by the wider geopolitical factors over which the British had little control.

He states the three important parts of the empire as the dominions of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa which were mainly promoted by the settler working class people. The commercial empire pioneered by the enterprising merchant classes in search of new markets and resources that made London the entrepot of global trade. The Indian sub-empire where direct control and coercion was asserted and which provided the market for the British produce, military strength and also the important geographical centre from which to assert their influence on the rest of Asia. The takeover of India by the East India Company also primarily started as a commercial project.

He provides a lot of insight into the role the settler states and their loyalty that came from a shared racial British identity. While this assertion of loyalty to the empire was strongest in Australia and New Zealand, Canada was a bit different with the French speaking Quebec who wanted nothing to do with the British Empire. South Africa was probably the loosest tie because of its racial tension among the Boer, English and the blacks.

The section on India cast an important light on how the cooperation of the local elites and the internal divisions between the local nationalists was, to maintain the empire. The white racial arrogance and the mistrust of the locals became an important part of ruling India after the sepoy mutiny of 1857. The initial views of INC to build an autonomous state from top down but as part of the Empire. The rise of Gandhi and his cultural nationalism and the non-cooperation movement that almost broke the empire.

He also makes case for how the partition of Africa by various European powers was done mainly to maintain a European balance of power. He focuses on most of these African colonies only after the end of the Second World War. The loss of India after the Second World War led the British to focus on the African colonies to fulfil a similar role as India used to.

The last chapters were revealing as to how Britain tried hard to stay relevant as world power after the Second World War and India became independent. These final chapters relating to the decline are definitely the best part of the book.

An excellent analysis of the Empire and its place in the world politics and the global economy and its decline after the 1930 economic crash. The good thing is that John Darwin writes with an objective focus free of any glorification like in the right-wing histories. Highly recommended to anyone one interested in the subject.

[Marks54 · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a comprehensive history of the British Empire from 1830 until 1970. It takes the point of view of the empire, rather than Britain itself, as the focal unit and moves through the various periods of imperial history from mid-19th century free trading to the scramble for Africa, to the Boer War, to WWI, to the interwar period, to WWII, and postwar events. I won't even try to tell any of the story, since it is a 660 page book that is rich with information and analysis.

For history buffs, this is an amazing book that is not an easy read. There is intriguing material in every chapter and this is likely a challenge for non-specialist readers. The style of the book is accessible although each section reads like a dense article in the Economist. The historical perspective is largely political and diplomatic, although there are some good treatments of international economics and social history.

For those wishing to get an edge in following the story line, the author provides a reference to a famous 1953 essay in Economic History Review on the relationship of Imperialism and Free Trade by Gallagher and Robinson that set the standard for this view of the British Empire. It is worth tracking down and reading.

There is much to digest in this massive book. I will likely raise my rating as I think more about it. It is a very good book

[Simon · Rating 1 out of 5]

The author has a tendency to allude to major historical events without explaining them, as if the reader already has a detailed knowledge of the subject matter. He also dog-whistles pro-empire values, rather than be completely upfront about it. Overall, he treats history as the privileged knowledge of a select few. In short, his history reflects an old-world elitist perspective typical of Oxford professors from bygone days.

[John Harper · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this sweeping, magisterial longue durée study of the British World System (nee Empire) extremely enjoyable to read.

You know what's going to happen, but you can't wait to find out why and how it happens. You don't want to look away. Rather like a car crash...

Overview

The main thesis is fundamentally that the British world system was a historical aberration in that it could only work because of factors outside of the control of the British:
1. A balanced and peaceful Europe that didn't contest Britain outside of Europe, or could be placated with partition politics
2. A weak Asia that could be dominated by advanced European technology on the cheap
3. An isolationist America that allowed Britain to have the lion's share of world trade and economics

This lucky coincidence of factors allowed the fractious, incredibly brittle British system to work. As soon as any of these dominoes started to fall, the entire thing came down in short order like a house of cards. And it's startling how fast everything unwound once it started to go that way.

The Inter-War Years

The especially fascinating part, for me, is trying to understand the mind of the British imperial bureaucrat from 1918 onward. Before WWI, the British had a fairly easy go of it. They had a small military, a huge "invisible" income to balance the books, and all the composite parts of the empire were complacent (except the Boers...): the direct rule colonies, like India, the trade entrepots, like Hong Kong and Singapore, and the so-called "White" settler dominions, like Canada and Australia.

All these components were convinced to remain quiet parts of empire. Not just, despite what detractors might think, because of gunboat democracy, but because a) the British were the leading edge of enlightened despotism and liberal thinking, b) they invested huge amounts in the overseas developments of empire to mutual benefit, c) they exported enormous human "resources" in the form of millions of settlers with emotional ties to the motherland and d) because in a multi-polar world, independent states were big targets, and being part of the British power block was probably the best of all possible options if you had to choose one.

But it's after 1918 that you see this unwinding. Suddenly, states start to agitate for more independence. The "white" dominions had gotten some degree of self-governance in the 19th century, but after 1918, through the 1926 post war Imperial conference and leading up to Westminster, they become basically independent countries. They're now only bound to the British by self-interest and choice. It's a community of alliances. And when groups start to not want to be part of that community (like India) things get very messy.

What's amazing to me is that, in the 1920s, British leaders didn't seem more freaked out by this! They accepted this change with remarkable equanimity. They were focused on foreign threats to such a degree that they failed to notice that all the parts of their empire already had one foot out the door. It seems like British leaders were so convinced that membership to their empire was desirable that they embraced devolution as a cost-savings, when (as this book shows) the complex domestic politics of basically every region meant that empire membership became less desirable by the day.

The Second World War

In the immediate run up to WWII, the empire, it appears now with 20/20 vision, was already breaking apart. And the immense financial pressure, damaging defeats, sudden lack of prestige, and massive social shifts in domestic Britain, destroyed it utterly in calamitous fashion.

But interestingly, nobody expected that outcome. The British then (like the Americans now) had this overwhelming sense of their own exceptionalism. And these are interesting points, so I'll repeat them from the book here:

1. The British believed in an international rules-based order, and failed to recognize that other states didn't see the value in that
2. They saw their empire as an archipelago of islands protected by a navy that shuttled a small army around to hot spots. They didn't foresee that this wouldn't work if multiple hotspots broke out at the same time. They didn't have the army or offensive force to defend against this.
3. Their archipelago was too devolved politically to allow them to marshal its resources. It wasn't a billion imperials against 80 million Germans. It was basically impossible to get even the most loyal parts of the empire to pay for the costs of their own defense, never mind great offenses.
4. The British never really embraced a war economy
5. They didn't grasp the book's core thesis - that they weren't exceptional, they were lucky. Their empire only worked because of the three things above (passive Asia, introverted America, balanced Europe.) All three of those things broke at the same time in WWII.

What I'd Like to Learn More About

Although the book is exhaustive, I would have liked to delve even more deeply into the opinions of British leaders over the origins of self-governance for the white dominions. How much did American independence play into the national psyche? This book really starts in the Victorian age, but it seems to me that there might have been some lingering national "trauma" over losing America, and an attempt to do it "right" this time. They basically let the other American-esque states go their own way. Did they really think they'd just remain in empire in perpetuity out of some emotionally driven sense of empire? That seems naive and lacking in realpolitik.

It seems impossible to truly believe that they didn't know that self governance would eventually lead to independence. Maybe, in the end, they thought they had no other choice. Maybe this is too much hindsight, but it seems obvious now that the seeds for full dissolution of empire were there, right from the start.

[Tim Chamberlain · Rating 3 out of 5]

An impressive overview of the political and economic history of the British Empire; not so much on the social history or cultural aspects of British imperialism though. I found this and 'After Tamerlane' (both in the "grand narrative" tradition) quite exhausting, but informative reads. Darwin's 'Unfinished Empire' is more accessible.

The main thing I learnt from this book is that I'm definitely a social historian! (i.e. - political and economic history is not really my forte) ... Plus, physically, it weighs a ton too!!

[Mike Briggs · Rating 3 out of 5]

Heaviest book I have ever owned.

[Trevor · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the finest single-volume study of the British Empire during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by one of the leading historians of the subject.

[Paithan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Just what it says on the tin; a comprehensive overview of the British Empire, in its various forms. I was surprised, early on, to learn that the British Empire was not a Top Down creation spurred on by a central authority bent on conquest, but more of a Bottom Up enterprise spurred on by motivated individuals.

Yet the most interesting thing that I found in this text is how it relates to modern day dynamics.
For example, very interesting that as food production ramped up in North America, most of the food production in Great Britain disappeared. Free trade killed those jobs, and what they got in return was greater prosperity (and creature comforts). Reminds me of America in the late 20th and early 21st century, and how a lot of our low-skill manufacturing jobs got exported to India and China.

There is of course a positive side to this; if less of your population is focused on food or manufacturing, they can focus on something else. Such as administration, warfare or technological research. Another interesting point concerning land; In the past the British bought up a bunch of land in Egypt and because of these assets, had total economic control of the country. Reminded me strongly of the Chinese buying up land here in America. The colonial practices of the past give good reason for nationalistic arguments in the present.

Despite having studied the First World War quite extensively in school, this book gives a real good overview of the effects and costs of the war. Darwin writes that the war was essential a conflict between British businessmen, who had control over the world, and German militants who wanted a piece of pie. But the First World War was not the devastating conflict (at least in economic terms) that killed the Empire. It definitely still existed in the 20s and the 30s, and could have made a comeback if not the Second World War. It was this conflict which really killed the Empire, and the following decades were just the slow death and replacement by the USA.

Last thing that I found interesting come about in this time period, after the Second World War. The British still had assets spread across the globe, including oil refineries in Iran. Things got real interesting when the Iranians seized the oil production (a natural resource in their own land) from a foreign ‘owner.’ British then had two choices. They could send in military forces to re-secure their assets or back down. They backed down and the Iranians took control of their oil. Why was this so interesting? Well it harkened back to, in my opinion, the section of the book in which the British bought up all those properties in Egypt. The natives can resist a foreign investor/invader, if the foreigners aren’t willing to back up their claim.

But what about when the foreigners are willing to back up their claim, such as the British and the Suez Canal? The British were willing to deploy troops to beat down the Egyptians, but the Egyptians did not go lightly. They had been banded together under the idea of a nation, and were not separated by tribes as they were when the British first invaded. In order to throw off a foreign invader/investor, the native people need a united front, and they must be willing to use violence to secure their local resources.

With all of that in mind, I can't give it anymore than three stars because the writing is quite dry. It is a history text, I understand that, but it could use a little bombast... a little poetry.

[Gayla Bassham · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is definitely a throwback to a more old-fashioned way of writing about the past, with a strong emphasis on military, political, and economic history. As such, I can imagine that fans of social and cultural history find it wildly annoying. And it's true that you learn very little from this book about the day-to-day lives of the people of India or Kenya or Australia and how they were affected by the British empire -- this is very much history told from the top down.

Having said that, I still found it useful. It is not the final word on the subject of the British empire (and to be fair, I can't imagine that Darwin thought it should be) but it is a window into the decision-making of the people in Britain calling the shots and an overview of some of the forces that constrained those decisions. Spoiler: most of these people do not end up looking particularly wise or competent, to the point that the book itself constitutes a persuasive implicit argument against the British class system.

It's very long, and it's not as well-written or as well-organized as I would have liked it to be. The chapter-by-chapter recitation of economic factors felt particularly rote, as if the author himself were not all that interested but felt duty-bound to include them. Still, I learned a lot. This book should not be a substitute for bottom-up accounts of colonialism, but if used to complement them it will be very useful.

[GooseReadsBooks · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a sprawling narrative of the British history which is told through the lenses of economics and politics. Darwin creates a compelling argument that the British Empire was not a centralised force with clear objectives but rather a sprawling network of interests. The empire is presented as the by-product of a variety of competing interests. Politicians in London are seemingly tasked with the daunting task of trying to manage the empire rather than dictating it's direction.

The book is heavy going and does require some basic knowledge of British history and economics in order for the points and history to be fully understood. There are many theories about the nature of the British empire, but I believe that the outlook presented by this book is likely the most accurate explanation of the rise of the British system but also by extension its downfall

[Celia Yost · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very impressive piece of scholarship that does probably about as clear and concise (note that it's over 650 pages) a job as anyone could explaining how and why the British Empire worked the way it did. This book is a big picture overview and as such there were a lot of things mentioned that could have been gone into in much greater detail, but again, it's already over 650 pages.

[David]

Swa

[Chloe Z · Rating 3 out of 5]

I learned a lot.

[Hadley Husisian · Rating 3 out of 5]

I mean, it's a history textbook. I'm not gonna give it five stars.

[Jeff Schauer · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good overview, though not as strong an intervention in the field as the introductory section would have you believe. Review here: http://californiamwananchi.blogspot.c...

[!Tæmbuŝu]

KOBOBOOKS

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

2/2 stars for content, 1/3 stars for writing style.

[Bsldavio · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nonfiction-history

[Olivia]

positively reviewed in 2 April 2010 TLS - possibly a really long book, though