Decline and Fall, 1939–67 (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
Decline and Fall, 1939–67
Context: the Empire on the eve of war
By 1939, Britain had not accepted that Indian independence was inevitable. The German and Japanese threats made retaining control of India appear essential for British security. The Dominions maintained formal bonds with Britain, and their populations remained attached through sentiment and economic self-interest. Most dependent colonies showed little pressure for self-rule.
The British Empire on the eve of the Second World War appeared stable and enduring. The combination of strategic necessity, economic ties, and colonial contentment suggested the imperial system would continue indefinitely—a perception that would be fundamentally challenged by the coming conflict.
The Second World War and imperial solidarity
When Britain declared war on Germany in 1939, the Dominions—Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa—immediately followed suit. This demonstrated the Empire's continuing cohesion and loyalty to Britain. During the conflict, the Empire supplied Britain with 5 million servicemen alongside essential food supplies and raw materials. Such contributions initially appeared to vindicate claims about imperial strength and unity.
The War's Contradictory Impact
The Second World War created a fundamental paradox for the British Empire. Whilst the conflict demonstrated impressive imperial solidarity and material support, it simultaneously devastated Britain's capacity to maintain its Empire. This contradiction would define the post-war era.
However, the war simultaneously undermined Britain's capacity to maintain its Empire. Although Britain emerged victorious in 1945, this success depended overwhelmingly on its two principal allies: the USA and the USSR. Britain could not match either superpower in military strength or economic resources, both of which held anti-imperialist positions. The war devastated Britain economically: by 1945, the country had lost approximately one quarter of its total wealth through the destruction of housing, factories, and shipping infrastructure. Britain had sold most of its foreign assets to finance imports during the war.
Post-war economic weakness and its imperial consequences
Britain's post-1945 economic exhaustion removed one of the Empire's primary binding forces. If Britain was too impoverished to purchase goods produced by the Dominions and colonies, too weak to invest in their economic development, and unable to supply them with manufactured goods they required, the economic rationale for maintaining the Empire evaporated.
The material foundation of the Empire had always rested on economic relationships—trade and investment created mutual dependencies that justified imperial connections. When Britain's economic capacity collapsed, these practical bonds dissolved, leaving only sentiment and political obligation to hold the Empire together.
The Labour government and the beginning of decolonization, 1945–51
The Labour Party, led by Clement Attlee, assumed power in 1945. Although some Labour MPs advocated abandoning the Empire entirely, Attlee's Cabinet rejected this approach. Most Labour ministers understood that without colonies, Britain would cease to be a great power. Furthermore, they recognised that economic prosperity depended on maintaining colonial connections. Nevertheless, Attlee committed his government to granting independence to India and Pakistan.
Indian Independence: The Precedent That Changed Everything
Indian independence in 1947, followed by Burma and Ceylon, marked the commencement of imperial dissolution. India's status as the first non-white colony to achieve independence established a powerful precedent that would shape subsequent developments. As "the jewel in the crown" of the British Empire, India's loss suggested that Britain's entire imperial structure would eventually collapse. If Britain lacked the political will to retain India, holding other territories appeared almost impossible.
Churchill and the Commonwealth vision, 1951–55
Indian and Pakistani independence did not signal, in Attlee's government's view, the start of systematic decolonization. When Winston Churchill returned to power in 1951, he demonstrated even stronger commitment to preserving the Empire than his Labour predecessor. British policymakers maintained hopes that the Commonwealth could develop into a third force in international relations, balancing American and Soviet power.
However, this prospect proved unrealistic. The new Commonwealth members shared little in religious, ethnic, political, or economic characteristics with the older Dominions, which now increasingly oriented themselves towards the USA for security rather than Britain.
Eden and the Suez Crisis, 1955–57
In 1955, Sir Anthony Eden became prime minister. Like Churchill, Eden remained committed to preserving British global influence, particularly in the Middle East. His policies culminated in the Suez Crisis of 1956, which proved disastrous from Eden's perspective. In 1957, Eden resigned after attempting to act as the leader of a great power and failing spectacularly.
The Suez Crisis: A Defining Moment
The Suez Crisis began when Egyptian President Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Britain, France, and Israel coordinated military action to seize control of the canal. However, the USA and USSR both opposed the operation, forcing Britain to withdraw in humiliation. The crisis exposed the reality that Britain could no longer act independently as a great power without American approval.
Key outcome: The crisis revealed the gap between British aspirations and actual capabilities in the post-war international order.
The significance of Suez has been extensively debated by historians. The crisis is often characterised as a watershed that separated the years when Britain's survival as a world power seemed feasible from the subsequent period that witnessed rapid imperial dissolution and diminishing global commitments.
Understanding Suez's True Impact
However, Suez's results should not be overstated. Apart from Eden's personal departure, the crisis had relatively limited immediate impact on British politics. The Conservatives, under Harold Macmillan, comfortably won the 1959 election. Britain's colonial withdrawal after 1960 was not a direct result of Suez. The crisis arguably merely exposed pre-existing trends in Britain's declining power rather than causing them.
Macmillan and African decolonization, 1957–63
Between 1957 and 1963, Macmillan's government granted independence to virtually all British colonies in Africa. Britain probably possessed sufficient military strength to suppress African nationalist movements. What it lacked was the political will to employ such force. By 1960, Macmillan recognised that any response other than rapid devolution of power would likely provoke insurrection. He understood that brutal suppression of colonial peoples would damage Britain's international standing and face condemnation from many Britons domestically.
Cold War Considerations
Aware that accusations of imperialism and racism served as potent weapons in Cold War propaganda, Macmillan had no desire to antagonise Third World opinion. Therefore, he pursued rapid withdrawal from Africa—a process likely to prove less damaging than attempts to retain possessions that would ultimately be lost regardless.
His objective was constructing new democratic states that maintained favourable dispositions towards Britain. Given the speed of British withdrawal, most colonies received less preparation for self-government than Britain had originally planned.
Final withdrawal from the Middle and Far East, 1967
Britain attempted to preserve its influence in the Middle and Far East for several additional years. Approximately 100,000 British service personnel remained stationed "east of Suez" during the mid-1960s. However, economic difficulties in 1967 compelled Britain to make drastic reductions to its Asian forces and announce its determination to abandon its 'east of Suez' role within a few years.
By 1967, the formerly powerful British Empire had contracted to a few scattered island bases worldwide. The Commonwealth survived but functioned as a discussion forum rather than a political or economic power bloc.
Explaining imperial decline
The Fundamental Causes of Imperial Collapse
The British Empire had expanded primarily because of Britain's military and economic superiority and the determination of its people and governments to acquire and maintain territory under British control. After 1945, Britain's military and economic strength could not compete with that of the USSR and USA. Moreover, British people and governments no longer demonstrated the same commitment to maintaining the Empire. In an era characterised by widespread anti-imperialist sentiment internationally, the Empire dissolved rapidly.
The combination of external pressure (from superpowers and nationalist movements), internal economic exhaustion, and shifting British political attitudes towards imperialism created conditions that made imperial retreat appear both inevitable and necessary. The transformation from global empire to reduced island nation occurred within approximately two decades, fundamentally reshaping Britain's international position and self-perception.
Key Points to Remember:
-
The Second World War simultaneously demonstrated imperial solidarity (5 million servicemen, material support) whilst fatally weakening Britain's capacity to maintain the Empire through economic devastation (loss of one quarter of national wealth).
-
Indian independence in 1947 established a precedent that made retention of other territories increasingly difficult to justify, as the "jewel in the crown" had been relinquished.
-
The Suez Crisis (1956) exposed rather than caused Britain's imperial decline, revealing the gap between British aspirations and actual power relative to the USA and USSR.
-
Macmillan's rapid African decolonization (1957-63) reflected pragmatic recognition that Britain lacked the political will to suppress nationalist movements brutally, particularly given Cold War propaganda concerns.
-
By 1967, economic pressures forced Britain's final withdrawal from the Middle and Far East, completing the transformation from global empire to a nation with scattered island bases and a Commonwealth that existed as a talking forum rather than an effective power bloc.