by Norman Lowe
Maranto, R., Lansford, T. and Johnson, J. (eds) Judging Bush (Stanford University Press, 2009).
McCullough, D., Truman (Simon & Schuster, 1993).
Newton, J., Eisenhower: The White House Years (Doubleday, 2011).
Reeves, R., President Nixon: Alone in the White House (Simon & Schuster, 2002).
Roberts, A., A History of the English Speaking Peoples Since 1900 (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2006).
Robin, C., ‘The War on Tax’, London Review of Books (25 August 2011).
Suri, J., Henry Kissinger and the American Century (Harvard University Press, 2007).
Unger, C., The Fall of the House of Bush (Simon & Schuster, 2007).
Woods, R. B., Quest for Identity: America since 1945 (Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Zinn, H., A People’s History of the United States (Harper Perennial, 2010 edition)
QUESTIONS
1. How far would you agree with the view that Johnson’s administration was largely a failure because of US involvement in the Vietnam War?
2. Explain why there was such a powerful anti-communist movement in the USA in the years following the Second World War. How important was Senator Joseph McCarthy’s role in the movement?
3. (a) Explain why Malcolm X left the Nation of Islam.
(b) ‘The growth of radicalism among African Americans was important in helping them to gain their civil rights during the 1960s.’ Explain whether you agree or disagree with this view.
4. Explain why the March on Washington took place in 1963.
5. ‘The use of non-violence was the most important reason for African Americans gaining improved civil rights in the years 1960–8.’ How far would you agree with this statement?
6. Critics have sometimes described the presidencies of Jimmy Carter (1977–81) and George Bush (1989–93) as completely ineffective. Explain whether you think this is a fair criticism.
7. In what ways can the Clinton administration (1993–2001) be judged a success? Explain why, in spite of his successes, Clinton was impeached towards the end of his presidency.
8. Explain what was meant by ‘Reaganomics’, the term used to describe President Reagan’s economic policies. How successful were these policies?
9. The presidency of George W. Bush has been described as ‘one long disaster’. How far do you think this verdict is justified?
There is a document question about the struggle for civil rights on the website.
Part V
Decolonization and After
Chapter 24
The end of the European empires
SUMMARY OF EVENTS
At the end of the Second World War in 1945, the nations of Europe still claimed ownership of vast areas of the rest of the world, particularly in Asia and Africa.
Britain’s Empire was the largest in area, consisting of India, Burma, Ceylon, Malaya, enormous tracts of Africa and many assorted islands and other territories, such as Cyprus, Hong Kong, the West Indies, the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar.
France had the second largest empire, with territories in Africa, Indo-China and the West Indies. In addition, Britain and France still held land in the Middle East, taken from Turkey at the end of the First World War. Britain held Transjordan and Palestine and France held Syria. They were known as ‘mandated’ territories, which meant that Britain and France were intended to ‘look after’ them and prepare them for independence.
Other important empires were those of the Netherlands (Dutch East Indies), Belgium (Congo and Ruanda Urundi), Portugal (Angola, Mozambique and Guinea), Spain (Spanish Sahara, Ifni, Spanish Morocco and Spanish Guinea) and Italy (Libya, Somalia and Eritrea).
Over the next 30 years, remarkable changes took place. By 1975 most of these colonial territories had gained their independence. Sometimes, as in the Dutch and French colonies, they had to fight for it against determined European resistance. The problems involved were often complex; in India there were bitter religious differences to resolve. In some areas – Algeria, Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda and Rhodesia – large numbers of whites had settled, and they were relentlessly hostile to independence, which would place them under black rule. Britain was prepared to grant independence when it was felt that individual territories were ready for it, and most of the new states retained a link with Britain by remaining in the British Commonwealth (a group of former British-controlled nations which agreed to continue associating together, mainly because there were certain advantages to be gained from doing so).
The main British territories which gained independence, sometimes changing their names (new names in brackets), were:
India; Pakistan – 1947
Burma; Ceylon (Sri Lanka) – 1948
Transjordan (Jordan) – 1946; Palestine – 1948 (see Sections 11.1–2)
Sudan – 1956
Malaysia; Gold Coast (Ghana) – 1957
Nigeria; Somaliland (became part of Somalia); Cyprus – 1960
Tanganyika and Zanzibar (together forming Tanzania) – 1961
Jamaica; Trinidad and Tobago; Uganda – 1962
Kenya – 1963
Nyasaland (Malawi); Northern Rhodesia (Zambia); Malta – 1964
British Guiana (Guyana); Barbados; Bechuanaland (Botswana) – 1966
Aden (South Yemen) – 1967
Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) – 1980
The other colonial powers were at first determined to hold on to their empires by military force. But they all gave way in the end.
The main territories gaining independence were:
French
Syria – 1946
Indo-China – 1954
Morocco; Tunisia – 1956
Guinea – 1958
Senegal; Ivory Coast; Mauretania; Niger; Upper Volta (later Burkina-Faso); Chad; Madagascar (Malagasey); Gabon; French Sudan (Mali); Cameroun (Cameroon); Congo; Oubangui-Shari (Central Africa); Togo; Dahomey (Benin from 1975) – 1960
Dutch
East Indies (Indonesia) – 1949
Surinam – 1975
Belgian
Congo (Zaire 1971–97) – 1960
Ruanda-Urundi (became two separate states: Ruanda and Burundi) – 1962
Spanish
Spanish Morocco – 1956
Guinea (Equatorial Guinea) – 1968
Ifni (became part of Morocco) – 1969
Spanish Sahara (divided between Morocco and Mauretania) – 1975
Portuguese
Guinea (Guinea-Bissau) – 1974
Angola; Mozambique – 1975
East Timor (seized by Indonesia later in 1975) – 1975
Italian
Ethiopia – 1947
Libya – 1951
Eritrea (became part of Ethiopia) – 1952
Italian Somaliland (became part of Somalia) – 1960
24.1 WHY DID THE EUROPEAN POWERS GIVE UP THEIR EMPIRES?
During the 1990s more documents dealing with decolonization became available, enabling historians to investigate more deeply the motives of the European powers in giving up their colonies and the different ways in which they carried out their withdrawals. The main debate that has developed is about the extent to which decolonization was caused by local nationalist movements, and how far it was brought about by outside political and economic considerations. Robert Holland, a leading exponent of what has become known as the ‘metropolitan thesis’, believes that outside forces – metropolitan forces – were more important. He writes:
The great colonial powers divested themselves of their subordinate possessions, not because internal pressures within their colonies left them with no other choice, but in the wake of a revisionist process whereby imperial roles came to be seen as incongruent with more ‘modern’ goals in the fields of foreign and economic policy.
Other historians feel that more credit must be given to the strength of local nationalist movements, and they acknowledge that in some cases the imperial power was quite simply expelled by sheer force. For example, would the British have le
ft East and Central Africa for purely ‘metropolitan’ reasons if there had been no nationalist movements in these areas? Of course there is no simple answer. What can be said with certainty is that all these factors were present in varying degrees in all colonial territories.
(a) Nationalist movements
These had been in existence in many of Europe’s overseas colonies, especially those in Asia, for many years before the Second World War. Nationalists were people who had a natural desire to get rid of their foreign rulers so that they could have a government run by people of their own nationality. Although the European powers claimed to have brought the benefits of western civilization to their colonies, there was a general feeling among colonial peoples that they were being exploited by the Europeans, who took most of the profits from their partnership. They claimed that the development and prosperity of the colonies were being held back in the interests of Europe, and that most of the colonial peoples continued to live in poverty. In India, the Indian National Congress Party had been agitating against British rule since 1885, while in south-east Asia, Vietnamese nationalists began to campaign against French rule during the 1920s. However, nationalism was not so strong in other areas, and progress towards independence would have been much slower without the boost provided by the Second World War. There is no doubt, however, that after the war the strength of nationalist feeling in many cases forced the colonial power to grant independence long before they had intended to do so. This often had disastrous results because the new states had not been properly prepared for independence. This was true of the British in Nigeria, the Belgians in the Congo and Rwanda-Urundi, the Spanish in Spanish Sahara and the Portuguese in Mozambique and Angola.
(b) Effects of the Second World War
The Second World War gave a great stimulus to nationalist movements in a number of ways:
Before the war, colonial peoples believed it would be impossible to defeat the militarily superior Europeans by force of arms. Japanese successes in the early part of the war showed that it was possible for non-Europeans to defeat European armies. Japanese forces captured the British territories of Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong and Burma, the Dutch East Indies and French Indo-China. Although the Japanese were eventually defeated, the nationalists, many of whom had fought against the Japanese, had no intention of tamely accepting European rule again. After all, Britain, France and Holland had failed miserably to protect their subjects, thus destroying any claim to legitimacy they might have had. If necessary, nationalists would continue to fight against the Europeans, using the guerrilla tactics they had learned fighting the Japanese. This is exactly what happened in Indo-China (see Chapter 21), the Dutch East Indies, Malaya and Burma.
Asians and Africans became more aware of social and political matters as a result of their involvement in the war. Some 374 000 Africans were recruited into the British armed forces. The vast majority of them had never left their homeland before, and they were appalled at the contrast between the primitive living conditions in Africa and the relatively comfortable conditions they experienced even as members of the armed forces. Some Asian nationalist leaders worked with the Japanese, thinking that after the war there would be more chance of independence being granted by the Japanese than by the Europeans. Many of them, like Dr Sukarno in the Dutch East Indies, gained experience helping to govern the occupied areas. Sukarno later became the first president of Indonesia (1949).
Some European policies during the war encouraged colonial peoples to expect independence as soon as the war was over. The Dutch government, shocked that people were so ready to co-operate with the Japanese in the East Indies, offered them some degree of independence as soon as the Japanese were defeated. The 1941 Atlantic Charter set out joint Anglo-American thinking about how the world should be organized after the war. Two of the points mentioned were: Nations should not expand by taking territory from other nations.
All peoples should have the right to choose their own form of government.
Though Churchill later said that this only applied to victims of Hitler’s aggression, the hopes of Asian and African peoples had been raised.
The war weakened the European states, so that in the end, they were not militarily or economically strong enough to hold on to their far-flung empires in the face of really determined campaigns for independence. The British were the first to recognize this because, as Bernard Porter pointed out:
The British Empire had always been a cheapskate affair. Governments had never wanted to spend money on it or commit more than the minimum of personnel to it, or trouble the British people with it too much. The best way to manage things was to devolve the ruling of colonial possessions (and the expense) to settlers, or local traditional rulers (chiefs). This had its advantages but it also diluted Britain’s power.
Consequently the British responded by giving independence to India (1947). After that, British policy was to delay independence as long as possible, but to give way when the pressure became irresistible. At the same time the British concentrated on making their withdrawals ‘look good’. It was important to give the impression that they were in control of the process, that it was something that they had intended all along, and that they were not ‘scuttling away’. It was a further ten years before the Gold Coast became the first British territory in Africa to win independence; this became a great source of inspiration for other African colonies. As Iain Macleod (British Colonial Secretary) later put it: ‘we could not possibly have held by force our territories in Africa; the march of men towards freedom cannot be halted; it can only be guided’. The French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese reacted differently and seemed determined to preserve their empires. But this involved them in costly military campaigns, and eventually they all had to admit defeat.
(c) Pan-Africanism
Early in the twentieth century there was an important development in African thinking which emphasized that all people of African descent, wherever they lived, were united by the same cultural and spiritual heritage. Pan-Africanism, as it became known, was first publicized by people of African origin living outside Africa. At the forefront were Marcus Garvey, a self-educated Jamaican who had founded the Universal Negro Improvement Association, and W. E. B. Du Bois, the first African American to earn a doctorate from Harvard. Gradually these ideas spread and by the end of the Second World War some African students, mainly from British colonies, had taken up pan-Africanism. Not only was it an encouragement to their ambitions of independence, it also inspired them to think beyond that. If all Africans shared the same social and cultural ties, it meant that the ultimate goal after independence must be to abandon the artificial frontiers set up by the Europeans and have a sort of federal United States of Africa along the same lines as the United States of America.
Kwame Nkrumah, who was to become the first prime minister of a semi-independent Gold Coast and then the first president of Ghana, was a strong believer in pan-Africanism. He wasted no time before organizing meetings and conferences of African leaders in which he pressed the advantages of African unification. Some states supported the idea, including Guinea, Mali and Morocco, but a majority were not impressed – having just won their independence, they saw little point in surrendering a large proportion of it by entering a huge political federation. Some of the other leaders suspected that Nkrumah was developing delusions of grandeur, seeing himself as the president of a federal Africa. Strongest in their opposition were Ethiopia and Liberia, which had been independent for generations, together with Nigeria, Sierra Leone and almost all the former French colonies. By 1963 the prospect of a United States of Africa had disappeared when a conference of African countries at Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) decided that the best way forward would be for them all to join an Organization of African Unity (OAU), a much less binding arrangement, while still displaying a sort of unity. But pan-Africanism had not been totally irrelevant – it had been an important influence on the rise of nationalist movements in many of the former colonies.
/> (d) Outside pressures
There were several outside pressures on the colonial powers to give up their empires. The USA, no doubt remembering that they had been the earliest part of the British Empire to declare independence (1776), was hostile to imperialism (building up empires and owning colonies). During the war, President Roosevelt made it clear that he took the Atlantic Charter to apply to all peoples, not just those taken over by the Germans. He and his successor, Truman, pressurized the British government to speed up independence for India. Peter Clarke points out that Churchill’s imperialism irritated the Americans to such an extent that they were determined not to do anything that would help Britain to keep its empire. One reason given by the Americans for wanting to see the end of the European empires was that delays in granting independence to European colonies in Asia and Africa would encourage the development of communism in those areas. While there was clearly some truth in this argument in the case of Asia, Bernard Porter was convinced that in the case of Africa, there was still comparatively little communist influence. More important was the fact that the Americans looked on the newly-independent nations as potential markets into which they could force their way and establish both economic and political influence. In the eyes of the USA, imperially protected markets gave the British and other Europeans an unfair advantage.
The United Nations Organization, under American influence, came out firmly against imperialism and demanded a step-by-step programme for decolonization. The USSR also added its voice to the chorus and constantly denounced imperialism. As well as putting the European states under pressure, this encouraged nationalists all over the world to intensify their campaigns.
Almost every case was different; the following sections will look at some of the different ways in which colonies and territories gained their independence.
