Decolonisation (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
Decolonisation
Overview of the process
Britain emerged from the Second World War with its vast empire shaken but essentially intact. Over the next quarter-century, however, the imperial edifice was almost entirely dismantled. The process, though neither continuous nor initially planned in a coherent manner, involved intricate and often problematic dependencies scattered across island territories, small remote regions, and underdeveloped areas awaiting independence.
Decolonisation refers to the process through which colonial territories gained independence from imperial powers. For Britain, this transformation represented a fundamental shift in international status and economic relationships.
The early stages of decolonisation included independence for the Indian sub-continent (1947-48) and the abandoning of the League of Nations/UN mandate over Palestine (1948). These initial withdrawals amounted to little more than an undignified retreat from positions that had become untenable. Between January 1957 and October 1964, twenty colonies secured their independence, marking a conscious shift in policy from London. This acceleration represented a new phase in Britain's imperial history, one that would fundamentally alter the nation's global role.
The Labour government's approach to decolonisation
The Labour government viewed both Indian independence and the withdrawal from Palestine as pragmatically necessary, given the insuperable obstacles to continued British rule. However, Labour hoped that independence would not lead to the end of British influence. After all, the independent dominions had voluntarily joined the war effort of the 'mother country', demonstrating that their support remained valuable.
The Commonwealth was envisioned as a mechanism for maintaining British prestige and influence. Labour ministers expected an independent India within the Commonwealth to grow eventually into a surrogate empire, bolstering British standing on the international stage. This optimistic assessment reflected a desire to preserve influence through association rather than direct control.
In places where British strategic and economic interests were involved, the Labour government attempted to hold back the tides of decolonisation and maintain imperial control. Where the Conservatives returned to power, there was initially even less readiness for rapid decolonisation. Churchill's views had been shaped in the Victorian era, and he bitterly opposed Indian independence. However, the majority of leading Tories accepted that the days of the Raj had inevitably ended. One Labour minister recalled that it was Eden's job to 'keep Churchill away from the House while the [Indian independence] Bill went through'.
The use of force in colonial territories
In dependent colonial territories, both Labour and Conservative governments made minor constitutional concessions to assuage nationalist unrest, but were not afraid to use force to preserve British authority.
Both Labour and Conservative governments demonstrated a willingness to deploy military force when they believed British interests required protection, even as the broader trend moved towards decolonisation.
In Kenya, following the Mau-Mau insurrection, British forces employed oppressive measures with varying degrees of success in attempting to maintain control. The Mau-Mau insurrection was an anti-colonial uprising by the Kikuyu people and other ethnic groups against British rule, which began in 1952 and involved violent resistance to colonial authority.
In Cyprus, the government responded forcefully to the EOKA independence movement. EOKA (Ethniki Organosis Kyprion Agoniston, or National Organisation of Cypriot Fighters) was a Greek Cypriot nationalist guerrilla organisation that sought independence from Britain and eventual union with Greece.
In Malaya, British forces confronted an ongoing communist insurgency. These military interventions demonstrated the extent to which both parties were prepared to use force to maintain colonial authority, particularly in territories of strategic importance.
Macmillan and the 'wind of change'
The real change came with Macmillan's premiership. The new Prime Minister immediately commissioned a 'profit and loss' audit for each remaining colony. It had long been understood that, whatever the Empire's economic benefits, its maintenance imposed a heavy burden on the Treasury. Though the findings of this survey proved inconclusive, Macmillan embarked on a new phase in Britain's imperial history.
Iain Macleod's appointment as Colonial Secretary in October 1959 marked the change of direction most clearly. Indeed, Macleod announced that he hoped to be the last ever occupant of this office. (In fact, this distinction fell to Labour's Fred Lee in 1966.)
Between January 1957 and October 1964, twenty colonies secured their independence. This represented a conscious shift of policy in London.
Motivations behind the policy shift
The motivation of Macmillan and Macleod was multi-layered. If the cost/benefit analysis had not offered an overwhelming case for the government's policy, the changing pattern of British trade did. The percentage of trade with Empire and Commonwealth countries almost halved during the 1960s, whilst trade with Europe increased substantially.
In a celebrated speech to the South African parliament in February 1960, Macmillan declared that the 'wind of change' was blowing through the African continent. 'Whether we like it or not', he added, 'the growth of national consciousness is a political fact.' Yet it would be wrong to interpret the process of decolonisation as primarily a response to the growth of national sentiment, although the existence of heavyweight and credible national leaders such as Nkrumah (Gold Coast/Ghana), Nyerere (Tanganyika), and Banda (Nyasaland) did facilitate the actual handover of power.
Rather, the wind of change was blowing through Whitehall and much of the British establishment. The perils of trying to hang on to colonial possessions too long had been demonstrated by France in Indo-China and Algeria, Belgium in the Congo, and Portugal in Mozambique and Angola. These examples were plain to see.
International Examples: The Costs of Resisting Decolonisation
Several European powers demonstrated the dangers of attempting to maintain colonial control against nationalist movements:
- France faced prolonged and costly conflicts in Indo-China (1946-1954) and Algeria (1954-1962), with the Algerian War proving particularly devastating
- Belgium experienced a chaotic and violent withdrawal from the Congo in 1960, leading to years of instability
- Portugal engaged in lengthy colonial wars in Mozambique and Angola throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, draining national resources
These cautionary examples influenced British policymakers to pursue a more managed approach to decolonisation.
International pressures
International opinion was united in opposition to imperialism. American hostility dated back at least to the Second World War. Soviet antagonism was entangled in Cold War strategy to increase influence in the developing world. The age of imperialism proved much shorter than earlier generations had anticipated.
Cold War Context
Both superpowers opposed traditional European imperialism, creating significant international pressure:
- American hostility reflected both ideological opposition to colonialism and strategic interests in gaining influence in newly independent nations
- Soviet antagonism was driven by Cold War strategy, as the USSR sought to expand its influence in the developing world by supporting anti-colonial movements
Some remnants of Empire – Southern Rhodesia, the Falkland Islands, Hong Kong and Gibraltar – continued to cause difficulties in the decades ahead. Overall, however, the process of decolonisation was carried out relatively well, at least in comparison to that of other leading imperial powers.
Key independence dates 1945-1964
The decolonisation of the British Empire saw territories across Asia, Africa, the Middle East and the Caribbean gain independence:
| Territory | Year of independence |
|---|---|
| India and Pakistan | 1947 |
| Burma (Myanmar) | 1948 |
| Ceylon (Sri Lanka) | 1948 |
| Jordan | 1946 |
| Israel | 1948 |
| Ghana (Gold Coast) | 1957 |
| Malaysia | 1957 |
| Cyprus | 1960 |
| Sierra Leone | 1961 |
| Tanzania (Tanganyika) | 1961 |
| Jamaica | 1962 |
| Trinidad and Tobago | 1962 |
| Uganda | 1962 |
| Kenya | 1963 |
| Malawi | 1964 |
| Malta | 1964 |
| Zambia | 1964 |
The Acceleration of Decolonisation
Ghana's independence in March 1957 marked a turning point, as it was the first sub-Saharan African colony to gain independence. The pace accelerated thereafter, with the majority of colonies achieving independence during Macmillan's premiership (1957-1963).
Economic and political context
The changing economic landscape reinforced the decolonisation process. The percentage of British trade conducted with Empire and Commonwealth countries declined sharply during the 1960s, whilst trade with Europe grew substantially. This shift undermined the economic rationale for maintaining colonial possessions.
Economic Pressures for Decolonisation
The costs of maintaining the empire weighed heavily on the Treasury at a time when Britain faced economic challenges and sought to modernise its economy. The profit and loss audit commissioned by Macmillan revealed that many colonies were economic burdens rather than assets, though the findings remained inconclusive overall.
The Cold War context also influenced British policy. Both superpowers opposed traditional European imperialism, albeit for different reasons. American hostility to colonialism dated back to the Second World War and reflected both ideological opposition and strategic interests in gaining influence in newly independent nations. Soviet antagonism was entangled in Cold War strategy, as the USSR sought to expand its influence in the developing world by supporting anti-colonial movements.
Key Points to Remember:
- Britain's empire remained largely intact after 1945 but was almost entirely dismantled over the following quarter-century, with twenty colonies gaining independence between January 1957 and October 1964
- Labour hoped to maintain influence through the Commonwealth, whilst both Labour and Conservative governments used force in Kenya, Cyprus and Malaya to protect strategic interests
- Macmillan's 1957 profit and loss audit and Macleod's appointment as Colonial Secretary in October 1959 marked a deliberate policy shift, with Macleod hoping to be the last ever occupant of the office
- Economic factors drove decolonisation: trade with Empire and Commonwealth countries halved during the 1960s whilst European trade increased, and maintaining colonies imposed heavy Treasury burdens
- International pressure from the United States, USSR and United Nations, combined with the cautionary examples of France (Algeria, Indo-China), Belgium (Congo) and Portugal (Mozambique, Angola), demonstrated the costs of resisting decolonisation