Developing the Colonies (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
Developing the Colonies
Economic imperatives and colonial development
After 1947, Britain retained control over numerous colonial territories, especially across Africa. British officials expressed optimism about the stability and potential of these African possessions. Some even envisioned Africa as a new Raj—imagining it as a vast tropical plantation rich in mineral resources that could supply raw materials and manpower for Britain's armed forces. Before 1939, relatively limited efforts had been made to promote economic reform, social development, or encourage progress towards political independence in most colonies.
The Second World War had severely weakened Britain's economic position. By 1945, Britain no longer possessed abundant capital, creating a strong likelihood that countries within the British imperial system would seek economic partnerships with the USA instead. However, Britain's post-war economic weakness actually reinforced Commonwealth economic solidarity in trade and finance.
Almost all the Dominions and several independent countries (including Iraq) used the British pound sterling as the basis of their currency, banking their overseas earnings in London. The danger of the pound's collapse in 1947 threatened them all with bankruptcy. Moreover, Britain remained the most important market for most members of the sterling area.
The sterling area referred to the group of countries and territories using pound sterling as the basis of their currency and banking system. These nations appeared to have little option but to maintain their economic ties with Britain.
Various measures agreed in 1947 tied sterling area members more closely than before 1939 to a common trade policy, obliging them to purchase more imports from Britain. The sterling area thus became a closed economic bloc in a way that the Empire had never been. With approximately a quarter of the world's population and trade, it exceeded its main rival, the dollar area. Perpetuating this closely integrated trading and currency bloc became a central aim of British policy.
Colonial development policies under Labour
Labour politicians had long discussed 'developing' the colonies in vague terms. However, most had little clear understanding of what development should involve or how it should be implemented. Arthur Creech-Jones, Attlee's colonial secretary, was determined to assist Britain's colonies. He regarded colonial economic and social development as the necessary precondition for progress towards self-government.
Two pieces of legislation established the framework for colonial development:
Colonial Development and Welfare Act (1945) allocated £120 million over ten years to assist the colonies' development. This represented a substantial financial commitment, though subsequent events would reveal the limitations of this approach.
Colonial Development Corporation and Overseas Food Corporation (1948) were established to improve living standards in the colonies. These bodies were intended to coordinate and implement development projects across British territories.
The second colonial occupation
In much of Africa, Britain embarked upon what became known as the second colonial occupation—a term describing Britain's renewed and intensified intervention in colonial economies after 1945. Anxious to develop colonial economies as rapidly as possible to provide Britain with urgently needed raw materials, colonial governments interfered extensively in all areas of economic life. Scores of British 'experts' descended upon Africa with schemes for agricultural improvement.
The East African Groundnut Scheme: A Case Study in Colonial Mismanagement
Launched in 1948, the scheme attempted to reduce Britain's deficit in oils and fats.
- Cost to Britain: £36 million
- Results: Complete failure
- Outcome: Provided neither margarine for Britain nor employment for Africans
This spectacular economic mismanagement upset many of the local vested interests upon whose support British colonial rule depended.
The British government's enthusiasm for rapid change was far from limited to the Groundnut Scheme. This example of spectacular economic mismanagement was representative of a broader pattern of failed interventions that alienated local populations and undermined colonial stability.
The reality of economic exploitation
By 1950, the Labour government claimed it had abolished the old type of capitalist imperialism. However, the truth proved somewhat different. Far from genuinely helping the colonies' economic development, Britain actually exploited its colonies extensively. The British government:
- Restricted investment in colonial economies
- Controlled their trade patterns and commodity prices
- Rationed the goods colonies could purchase from Britain
The Contradiction of Labour's Colonial Policy
Between 1945 and 1951, the colonies were forced to lend Britain more money than Britain actually invested in the colonies. Despite all its progressive rhetoric, Attlee's government allowed the British dependencies to be exploited more intensively than at any time since colonies were established. This represented a fundamental contradiction between Labour's stated ideals and actual imperial practice.
Case study: the Gold Coast
Riots in Accra in 1948 convinced British officials that the Gold Coast was approaching revolution. Attlee's government therefore decided to grant Gold Coast Africans greater involvement in decision-making. A system of universal suffrage to elect an assembly was introduced, though British authorities continued to control finance, the police, and the civil service.
Kwame Nkrumah emerged as the leading nationalist figure. He had been educated in the USA and returned to the Gold Coast in 1947. His mission was straightforward: to expel the Europeans from Africa. In 1950, he urged civil disobedience and helped cause a general strike. Though briefly imprisoned, this actually served to strengthen his appeal.
Nkrumah's imprisonment proved to be a political miscalculation by British authorities. His Convention People's Party won more seats than any other in the first election under the new constitution. Accordingly, he soon became chief minister in the Executive Council, marking a substantial transfer of power to African leadership.
Case study: Nigeria
If power was devolved to Africans in one colony, there appeared no reason why this should not happen elsewhere. Nigerians, aware of developments in the Gold Coast, pressed successfully for greater political participation. Attlee's government believed that both the Gold Coast and Nigeria were special cases: both were well-populated countries with educated elites capable of taking on governmental responsibility. Importantly, in neither country were matters complicated by large numbers of white settlers, distinguishing them from colonies in East and Central Africa.
Case study: Malaya
Even after 1947, Britain still maintained substantial interests in South-East Asia, especially in Malaya. In 1945, the Malayan peninsula consisted of nine states (each ruled by a sultan under British protection), two British settlements, and Singapore. Essentially, Britain had allied itself with the Malayan elite, with colonial officials ruling while local royalty reigned. The population was multiracial, with roughly equal numbers of Malays and Chinese.
Malaya's Strategic Economic Importance
The area held immense economic value because it produced one-third of the world's tin and huge amounts of rubber, with the bulk of both products being sold to the USA. Malaya was the most important source of dollars in the Empire. Its rubber alone earned more hard currency than all Britain's domestic exports to the USA in the late 1940s.
In 1948, Britain decided to group the states and settlements into the Federation of Malaya to create a stronger, more viable political unit. Malayan Chinese feared that the Malays would dominate the new Federation. Malayan communists, exploiting the Chinese community's disaffection and encouraged by communist success in China itself, stirred up strikes and violence.
The situation became so serious that a state of emergency was declared and thousands of British troops were sent to Malaya. The worst year of the emergency was 1951, when more than 1,000 civilians and members of the security forces were killed. The guerrilla war dragged on until the late 1950s.
Helped by the fact that the majority of the Malayan population remained pro-British, Britain dealt with the situation successfully, resettling hundreds of thousands of Chinese in specially guarded villages and winning the battle for Malayan 'hearts and minds'.
British attitudes to Empire
Between 1947 and 1957, there was limited public pressure to abandon Britain's remaining colonies. Several factors explained this:
Pro-Empire sentiment:
- There was widespread awareness of the Empire/Commonwealth's economic importance. In 1951, it supplied 49% of British imports and took 54% of British exports—a greater percentage than at any time in its history. British jobs appeared to be at stake if the Empire/Commonwealth was abandoned.
- The Empire/Commonwealth seemed essential if Britain was to remain a world power.
Anti-Empire concerns:
- Some questioned the expense of military campaigns in Kenya and Malaya, which together cost approximately £100 million. Such spending seemed wasteful if these territories were soon to achieve independence.
- Others resented the cost of Britain's large overseas garrisons.
- Some felt uneasy about the authoritarian nature of many colonial governments, which contrasted sharply with Britain's domestic liberalism.
Nevertheless, most people, like most politicians, believed it would take decades before most colonies were ready for independence. Several practical obstacles appeared to exist that seemed to justify this cautious approach.
Practical obstacles to independence:
- In many colonies, the population seemed too small to permit easy development towards independence. Federation was considered a possibility, but often the proposed units of a federation (for example in the West Indies) were hundreds of miles apart and had little in common.
- In much of Africa, the proportion of educated people seemed too low to permit independence.
- Within several territories, there was a problem of ethnic or tribal division which could lead to bloodshed if Britain withdrew too quickly.
The Unintended Consequences of British Policy
Britain's deliberate encouragement of democratic politics presented African politicians with opportunities they could use effectively. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, Attlee's government helped create the conditions in which colonial politicians would acquire the means to organize on a large scale and ultimately drive out British rule. It should be noted that the move towards African independence was gathering momentum, and there was limited action any British government could—or should—have taken to prevent it.
Key Points to Remember:
-
Post-war colonial development policies (Colonial Development and Welfare Act 1945 allocating £120 million, Colonial Development Corporation 1948) aimed to prepare colonies for eventual self-government while securing raw materials for Britain.
-
The 'second colonial occupation' saw intensified British intervention in colonial economies, exemplified by failures like the East African Groundnut Scheme (costing £36 million), which alienated local interests without achieving economic goals.
-
Despite Labour's claims of ending capitalist imperialism, Britain actually exploited its colonies between 1945-1951, with colonies lending Britain more money than Britain invested in them.
-
Political developments in the Gold Coast (Kwame Nkrumah's rise in 1950) and Nigeria demonstrated the growing momentum towards African self-government, while Malaya faced a communist insurgency requiring substantial British military intervention (over 1,000 deaths in 1951).
-
British public opinion remained largely pro-Empire due to economic dependence (Empire/Commonwealth accounting for 49% of imports and 54% of exports by 1951), though concerns existed about the cost of colonial campaigns (approximately £100 million for Kenya and Malaya) and authoritarian colonial governance.