1. A2 Historical enquiry: India and the British Empire, 1757-1947

2. The inter-war years: Lee vs. Colman
L.O. To examine and judge Lee’s evidence about Britain’s hold on the empire (with a view to comparing it to Colman’s interpretation)

3. Examine Lee’s evidence about Britain’s hold on the empire
Acquisition and loss/ loosening of control of territories
Economic benefit or not?
Nationalism within the colonies
International climate of opinion
Commitment i.e. political and popular support in Britain
The Inter-War Years ( )
Post WW2 (1945 onwards)
Remember: put in quotation based evidence

4. homework
Complete your table analysing Lee’s article – print out and bring to next lesson
Bring your table for the Colman article to compare it with in next lesson
Due: 13/10

5. Which do you consider more accurate and why?
Stephen Lee believes that “[In 1939] there was nothing to indicate that the empire might disappear in the future’
Jonathan Colman believes that although the empire had grown larger and became closer linked economically as a result of WWI, it also led to ‘growing pressure for self-rule. As a result “[by 1939] the Empire was outwardly secure but contained forces of strain and unrest.’
Task: you are going to answer q.1-7 about Lee’s article and then compare his views with those of Colman in order to answer the question

6. Lee vs Colman
In groups, use your table to compare the views of Lee and Colman for one specific factor:
Acquisition
Economic
Nationalism
International
Commitment

7. Which do you consider more accurate and why?
Do you agree more with Lee that in 1939 “there was nothing to indicate that the Empire might disappear in the future”? Or do you agree more with Colman that there were significant signs of ‘strain and unrest’ even before the Second World War?
Task: Write up your own answer to this question. Think about what vocabulary to use when comparing arguments:
‘unconvincing’
‘his argument is weak’
‘more plausible to suggest’
‘the historians partly concur’
Ext. Can you find any places where Lee’s evidence contradicts his own argument and supports Colman’s? You could add this to your analysis