Impact of the Second World War (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
Impact of the Second World War
Britain's entry into the war and imperial support
In September 1939, Britain declared war on Germany. Unlike the First World War, Britain did not enter the conflict from a position of strength. By 1940, Britain faced a German-dominated Europe and could not fight alone. The country depended on assistance from its Dominions (except Éire) and dependencies to sustain the war effort.
This reliance on imperial resources proved both an asset and a source of tension. While the Empire would ultimately provide substantial military and economic support, the war also exposed the limits of British authority and accelerated demands for self-governance, particularly in India.
The situation in India
Declaration of war without consultation
In September 1939, Viceroy Lord Linlithgow the British administrator in India, declared India at war with Germany without consulting Indian political leaders. This unilateral decision provoked widespread resentment and highlighted the absence of Indian self-determination.
Many Indians did contribute to the British war effort; Indian princes supported Britain, and 2.5 million Indians volunteered to fight in the armed forces. However, opposition Indian leaders disagreed fundamentally on how to respond to the war.
Divided Indian responses
Indian political opinion split into three main camps:
-
Gandhi a pacifist, opposed any support for the British war effort. He refused to sanction a mass campaign of civil disobedience, recognising the moral complexities of Britain's situation, but maintained his principle of non-violent resistance.
-
Some Indian nationalists including Subhas Chandra Bose, believed Britain's wartime difficulties created an opportunity. They prepared to work with Germany and later Japan, viewing the Axis powers as potential liberators from British rule.
-
The Congress Party dominated by Nehru, refused to support the war effort unless Britain first granted India independence. When the British government rejected this demand, Congress called on provincial governments to resign office. Most did so, though reluctantly, leaving a political vacuum.
Muslim League opportunity
Britain established non-Congress provincial governments to fill the gap. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, leader of the Muslim League the political organisation representing many Indian Muslims, pledged support for Britain. He calculated that cooperation would win British backing for a separate Muslim state of Pakistan a homeland for India's Muslims, distinct from a Hindu-majority India.
This wartime alignment between the Muslim League and Britain shaped the eventual partition of the subcontinent. Jinnah's strategic cooperation during the war years significantly strengthened the Muslim League's political position and its case for a separate Muslim state.
Egypt and the Middle East
The war enabled Britain to assert control in Egypt and the Middle East, regions where British influence had been contested during the interwar years:
-
Britain effectively took over Egypt in 1939, using it as a base for military operations in North Africa and the Mediterranean.
-
The Shah of Iran refused to support Britain and showed sympathy for Germany. Britain responded by deposing him, installing a more compliant ruler.
-
In Iraq, the prime minister attempted to negotiate with Germany. Britain prevented this by driving him into exile, securing Iraq's oil resources and strategic position.
These actions demonstrated Britain's willingness to use military force to maintain control over territories it deemed essential to the war effort, even where formal imperial authority was limited. This approach revealed the gap between Britain's stated commitment to self-determination and its practical imperial policies.
The Atlantic Charter
In August 1941, hoping to secure American support, Churchill met US President Franklin D. Roosevelt at Placentia Bay, Newfoundland. The outcome of this meeting was the Atlantic Charter a declaration of Anglo-American principles intended to define the post-war world order.
The Charter included a pledge to "respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live." This commitment to self-determination the right of peoples to determine their own political status, appeared to support colonial independence movements. Indian nationalists seized on this promise, interpreting it as a commitment to end imperial rule.
Churchill's Contradiction and Indian Response
Churchill, however, declared that the Charter's promise of self-determination did not apply to the British Empire. He argued that the principles referred only to territories under enemy occupation, not to Britain's colonies.
This clarification outraged Indian nationalists, who accused Britain of hypocrisy in fighting for freedom in Europe while denying it to colonial subjects. This contradiction between Britain's war aims and its imperial policies would continue to fuel anti-colonial sentiment throughout the war.
The Japanese threat
In December 1941, Japan attacked the US naval base at Pearl Harbor and British bases in the Pacific. The attack brought the USA into the Second World War, which benefited Britain strategically. However, by mid-1942, Japanese forces had captured Malaya, Singapore (described as a vital fortress), Burma and Hong Kong. Australia and India appeared vulnerable to Japanese invasion.
The rapid Japanese advance exposed the weakness of British defences in Asia and undermined the image of British imperial invincibility. For many in Asia, Japanese victories demonstrated that European colonial powers could be defeated by an Asian nation. This psychological blow to British prestige had lasting consequences for the post-war Empire.
'Quit India'
American pressure and the Cripps Mission
In 1942, as the Japanese army advanced towards India's borders, serious disorder erupted within India. The USA urged Churchill to grant India measures of freedom and democracy that would rally its people to fight for these ideals. Labour members of Churchill's government argued that Linlithgow's approach (described as 'crude imperialism') impeded India's war effort.
Under pressure, Churchill agreed to send Sir Stafford Cripps a left-wing Labour Party member, to India to negotiate. Churchill reluctantly agreed that Cripps could offer India independence after the war in return for support during it. Congress leaders demanded nothing less than immediate full independence and rejected the offer. Gandhi refused to accept what he termed a 'post-dated cheque' from 'a failing bank'. Cripps' mission thus failed.
The campaign and British response
Congress launched another mass disobedience campaign titled 'Quit India' demanding immediate British withdrawal from India. British authorities responded with firm action:
- Congress leaders were arrested
- Congress rank and file supporters attempted to dislocate the war effort
- Saboteurs damaged railways, cut telephone lines and attacked government buildings
- Troops and aircraft helped police suppress the disturbances
- Several thousand Indians were killed and wounded
- 100,000 people were arrested by November 1942
The Indian army remained loyal to Britain throughout. The Muslim League benefited most from 'Quit India'. With Congress unable to function, Muslim League leaders formed governments in four northern provinces, consolidating their political position and advancing the case for Pakistan.
Churchill's determination
Americans continued to argue they were not fighting the war to preserve the Raj (British rule in India). Churchill declared his position:
Churchill's Famous Declaration
"We mean to hold our own. I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire."
This statement revealed his determination to maintain imperial control, despite American pressure and Indian demands. Churchill's emotional attachment to Empire would increasingly clash with the practical realities of Britain's post-war position.
India 1943–5
Wartime grievances
In the final two years of the war, India's grievances intensified:
-
Inflation prices rose substantially, reducing living standards
-
Bengal famine 1943 a severe famine killed approximately 3 million people. The provincial administration was unprepared for the catastrophe. Linlithgow expressed concern but did not visit Bengal. His successor, Field-Marshal Lord Wavell, did visit Bengal and organised relief work, but the damage to Britain's reputation was severe.
The Bengal Famine: A Turning Point
The Bengal famine of 1943 represented a catastrophic failure of British administration in India. The death of approximately 3 million people, combined with the Viceroy's initial failure to visit the affected region, severely damaged Britain's moral authority to rule India. This tragedy became a powerful symbol of British misrule and strengthened the case for Indian independence.
India's contribution
Despite these problems, India made a substantial contribution to the Allied war effort. The Indian army fought effectively in 1944, holding the Japanese at bay in north-east India. India also helped pay for the war. By 1945, Britain owed India £1375 million, a debt that reflected India's economic support for the imperial war effort.
Wavell's alternative view
Churchill remained determined to retain India. Britain's position as a great power appeared to be slipping as the USA and the USSR emerged to dominate the wartime alliance. Wavell, however, took a different view. He feared that a disaffected India might become 'a running sore' that would drain Britain's strength. British public opinion, he believed, would not permit holding India by force.
The only alternative, according to Wavell, was to negotiate a settlement aligned with interwar reforms, through which India could become a friendly partner within the Commonwealth. Wavell's assessment recognised the practical limits of British power and the changing nature of international politics. His view contrasted sharply with Churchill's emotional attachment to Empire.
Allied victory
Alliance with the USSR and the USA ensured British victory in the Second World War. Japan's surrender in August 1945 enabled British forces to regain lost territories in South-East Asia. One-quarter of the world's land surface remained part of the British Empire or Commonwealth, as it was increasingly called.
Victory in 1945, like victory in 1918, appeared to demonstrate the Empire/Commonwealth's strength and solidarity. During the war, it had provided Britain with 5 million servicemen and essential food and raw materials. British forces in 1945 numbered 5 million men and were stationed globally: in Germany, Austria, Italy, Greece, Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Syria, north Africa, Indo-China, the Dutch East Indies, and throughout the Empire.
The situation in 1945
Britain emerged from the war victorious. Although approximately 400,000 British people had died, this represented only one-fiftieth of the USSR's losses. The scale of destruction in British cities bore no comparison with Germany. Britain had escaped enemy occupation, and its economy appeared stronger than the war-damaged economies of Europe. British forces had played a major role in Allied victory, and Britain's global military presence in 1945 suggested continuing great power status.
Underlying Weaknesses Behind Victory
However, this appearance of strength concealed underlying weaknesses that would soon become apparent:
- Britain's financial position was precarious, with massive debts owed to India and other creditors
- The war had accelerated nationalist movements across the Empire, particularly in India
- The USA and USSR had emerged as superpowers, reducing Britain's relative influence
- Britain's military commitments were overextended across the globe
The question facing Britain in 1945 was whether it could maintain its imperial position in this changed international environment. The answer would become clear within just two years.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
Britain depended on its Empire for military and economic support during the Second World War, but this reliance exposed tensions and accelerated demands for self-governance.
-
Indian political leaders divided sharply over how to respond to the war: Gandhi opposed support, some nationalists collaborated with Axis powers, and Congress demanded independence as the price of cooperation.
-
The Atlantic Charter (1941) promised self-determination but Churchill insisted it did not apply to the British Empire, provoking accusations of hypocrisy from Indian nationalists.
-
The 'Quit India' campaign (1942) led to mass arrests and violence, but the Indian army remained loyal and the Muslim League strengthened its position by forming provincial governments.
-
Despite wartime grievances including the Bengal famine (1943), India contributed 2.5 million volunteers and substantial economic resources, with Britain owing India £1375 million by 1945.