K. Nielson, ‘Greatly exaggerated: the myth of the decline of Great Britain before 1914’ ibid

K. Wilson, Chapter 14, ‘Problems and Possibilities. Exercises in Statesmanship 1814- 1918’ (2003)

In comparing these three articles, it is important to examine the main themes raised in them and consider how they agree and disagree. The most important issue on which they all concur is Great Britain and her empire had not begun its decline before the beginning of the First World War in 1914, but was actually still a great power and even, ‘the pre-eminent great power’ . The change in British foreign policy is investigated by the articles and the same conclusion drawn, that it was based in strength not weakness. Many reasons are given in the articles for the beginning of British decline, from the idea of strategic overextension of the empire due to having to become a hybrid nation of naval and army strength to the idea of natural decline due to having completed a historical mission. Nielson only hints that Britain is guilty of overextension, he, instead spends a lot of his art

icle trying to prove that Britain had not begun to decline.

The fact that Great Britain was a still a great power when the First World War began in 1914 is universally agreed upon by the three articles. However, the ideas about what constitutes power in the international system are different in the articles. Nielson spends a lot of the article writing about Great Britain’s naval strengths and weaknesses as a gauge of her power. This view is echoed by Lord Selbourne who argues that Britain’s navy seems to be one of ‘the two main pillars on which the strength of this country (Great Britain) rests’ , the other being her credit. Britain had long used the numerical formula of the ‘two power standard’ as a guide to the size of its navy to ensure supremacy at sea. As the growth of government spending in the years in the run up to the First World War shows, she would be allowed to continue to increase her navy accordingly. Martel offers an alternative view to military strength as a gauge of a nation’s power. He argues that ‘The essence of power is influence… Power determines who gets what, when, where and how.’ It is true that military power can be used to exert an influence on other powers, yet there are examples in which Britain used economic and diplomatic pressure to control situations. Nielson makes an acknowledgement of Great Britain’s ‘unparalleled influence in foreign capital markets’ as a result of her large (44%) overseas investments, compared to the other main lending nations (France- 19.9%, Germany- 12.8%) which would have been used to manipulate foreign governments to Britain’s will. There are numerous occasions when Britain, through means of diplomatic alliances, increased or secured their influence in areas of the globe. The Anglo-Japanese alliance of 1902 kept British influence in the Far East, while reducing the need of such a large British naval presence in the region. Similarly the Anglo-French alliance of 1912 kept British influence in the Mediterranean while reducing the size of its fleet in the vicinity. Although the articles agree that Britain was

Some topics in this essay:
World War, Similarly Anglo-French, British Empire, Isolationism Britain, George Hamilton, Lord Selbourne, Exercises Statesmanship, Martel Wilson, Royal Navy, Russian French, world war, economic diplomatic, foreign policy, britain power, martel offers, articles agree, decline britain, ‘problems possibilities exercises, british influence, british foreign, offers alternative, chapter 14 ‘problems, possibilities exercises statesmanship, 14 ‘problems possibilities, idea natural decline,