Re: WW2 and the disintegration of British empire

Don Phillipson wrote:
"Stephen Graham" <graham1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9uidnWQ62-DsWHPbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Much of the Indian Army, even at the height of World War Two, was
assigned to Internal Security duties, which is policing. Those forces on
the Northwest Frontier were engaged in something between especially
vigorous policing and outright warfare, depending on events.

The same was true of British and colonial forces in most of the colonies.

It appears simply not true that "in most of the colonies" the
"British and colonial forces" were busy with either internal
security (policing) or frontier campaigning as on the NW Frontier.

I think you've mistaken what I've said, presuming that I meant that conditions in other colonies were precisely like those in India, as opposed to other colonial forces functioning in similar roles.

Most of the colonial forces did in fact operate as gendarmerie - look for instance at the functioning of the King's African Rifles in peacetime. It's particularly true for the colonial situation with which I'm most familiar, Burma.

The Northwest Frontier was (and in many ways still is) an extreme of a not-uncommon situation of an undelineated international boundary and ensuing difficulties therefrom: another excellent example would be British Honduras or the post-World War Two issues in Sarawak.

Egypt was never in the empire - just ruled by the UK. Iraq, Jordan,
Palestine were all ruled by the UK (and many created by the UK), however
none of these were in the empire either.
All of them were invited to join the Commonwealth and declined.

I do not believe Egypt was ever invited to join the Commonwealth.

Look at the follow-on to the London Declaration of 1949. I'm sorry that I don't have a good reference and I might well be mistaken as to a formal invitation versus an informal understanding that Egypt et al. could be members of the Commonwealth under those provisions. If you know something more, I'd be happy to listen.

The British applied military force in many of their colonies on a
regular basis. The threat of it was always there, even if there was a
preference to avoid it if possible.

You might wish to learn a bit more about the workings of the Empire. You
might start off with something such as Byron Farwell's _Queen Victoria's
Little Wars_, which is a basic introduction to the military efforts
involved.

There were huge differences between Queen Victoria's wars and
those of the 20th century, the turning point being the Boer War
(when a small number of white colonials held off a huge
British expeditionary force for years.)

I suggested it as a starting point, not as the ultimate source on the Empire. Nevertheless, the Empire as it came to be in the 19th century is very important to an informed understanding of the state of the Empire in the years surrounding World War Two.

.