The Second World War and empire

Just as the First World War stimulated profound change and a marked acceleration of existing political and economic trends within the European empires, so too did the war of 1939—45.

As before, one of the main reasons for this was the need to mobilize imperial resources in the pursuit of victory, which had profound consequences for the economic and social life of the colonies. In addition, however, this conflict raised new problems owing to the inability of Britain, France and Holland to defend their imperial possessions. This was most apparent in 1941—42 when their colonies in South-East Asia were either conquered or occupied by the Japanese. The fact that the British and Dutch lost militarily to an Asian power and that France meekly accepted Japanese occupation of Indochina constituted crushing blows that destroyed the aura of European power. The ability of the imperialists to govern vast areas of the world with relatively few forces had, after all, always relied on an image of racial invincibility. With the fall of the fortress of Singapore and other symbols of empire, this image was now shattered, which naturally raised the question as to whether the indigenous populations would permit the colonial Powers to reclaim their South-East Asian colonies in the event of a Japanese defeat.

The effects of the events in South-East Asia were felt not just in the region itself but all over the colonized world. In particular, they exacerbated an already tense situation in India. In September 1939 Britain had compromised its professed stance of steering India towards self-government when, without consulting Indian opinion, the viceroy declared war on behalf of the country. Outraged by this act, Congress withdrew its members from provincial governments in protest. The need to obtain support from Congress for the war effort soon, however, forced Britain to return to its reforming agenda and in fact to go further than ever before in its promises of constitutional reform.

In March 1942, following the setbacks in South-East Asia, the Cripps mission proposed self-government once the war was over and greater involvement in government while the conflict was in progress. This was not enough to satisfy Gandhi and Nehru. Indeed, the former, in the light of recent British defeats, famously described the offer as ‘a post-dated cheque on a failing bank'. Accordingly, in August 1942 Congress launched the ‘Quit India' movement, a broad non-cooperation campaign that soon descended into violence. The government reacted by arresting the Congress leadership and using the Indian army to suppress the public disorder. This crackdown did not mean that the offer of Dominion status was withdrawn, but rather that India's future was put on hold until the war was over. The unity of the British Empire was also affected in another way by the events of 1941—42, for Britain's inability to defend South-East Asia led Australia, which previously had been one of the most loyal Dominions, to look increasingly to the United States to guarantee its security. With Canada and South Africa already acting autonomously and Ireland declaring its neutrality, the seal was thus set for a further loosening of Empire— Commonwealth ties.

Another important aspect of the war that had repercussions for the future of empire was that American entry into the conflict on the side of the colonial Powers led to increased pressure on the latter to divest themselves of their imperial possessions. The Atlantic Charter signed by Roosevelt and Churchill in August 1941 revitalized the idea that self-determination was a right, while the UN looked set to be more searching in its policy towards mandates and colonies than its predecessor had been. Thus, the international environment was changing, with the emphasis once again being placed on ideas of responsible trusteeship and progress towards self-government.

At one level, therefore, the Second World War provided a dramatic shock which starkly revealed the fallibility of the Europeans and led to new anti-colonial pressures.

However, it should not be imagined that this necessarily led to a loss of will on the part of the imperialists. Indeed, the defeat in South-East Asia, with its attendant loss of vital raw materials such as rubber and tin, only helped to persuade Britain and the Free French, who controlled French Equatorial Africa from 1940 and West Africa from 1944, to devote considerable resources to the development of Africa's economic potential. Thus what had been discussed in the abstract in the 1930s now became practical policy and major efforts were made to boost raw material and cash-crop production. This in turn set the path for European policy towards their African colonies in the immediate post-war period.

Atlantic Charter

A document signed by Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in August 1941 which committed the United States and Britain to support democracy, selfdetermination and the liberalization of international trade.

Free French Forces

General Charles de Gaulle commanded an armoured division in the battle of France and then, briefly, held a junior post in Paul Reynaud’s cabinet on the eve of France’s defeat.

In June 1940, in radio broadcasts from London, he called upon French people everywhere to join him in the struggle to free France from the Nazi occupation and, later, Marshal Petain’s Vichy regime. At first, the general’s calls went largely unanswered. His abrasive, overbearing personality and his lack of diplomatic finesse ensured that his relationship with Roosevelt and Churchill was always rocky at best. By 1943, however, he had become the undisputed leader of the Free French movement, whose growing volunteer forces participated in Allied military operations in North Africa and the Middle East. In 1944, Free French Forces triumphantly participated in the liberation of France. The Allies recognized his administration as the French provisional government in October 1944, and de Gaulle, a national hero, was elected president in November 1945.

He resigned shortly thereafter when the National Assembly refused to grant him American-style executive powers. He again served his country as president from 1958 to 1969.

see Chapters 10 and 17

The end result of the pressures exerted by the war was that by 1945 the imperial Powers were being drawn towards a bifurcated approach to empire. On the one hand, all too aware of their weakness, they were willing to allow some territories to move towards independence. These tended to be those colonies or mandates, such as India and Palestine, where the economic benefits of empire appeared to be outweighed by the potential security costs. In the Middle East this led to independence being granted to Lebanon in 1943, and to Syria and Transjordan in 1946, although with a mixed record for the future. However, on the other hand, while independence came relatively quickly to South Asia and most of the Middle East, policy was very different towards those colonies in South-East Asia and Africa that were considered to be vital for post-war reconstruction. Here the imperial Powers aimed to re-establish their authority and to develop the colonial economic potential for the good of their own damaged industrial and financial bases. This was, however, to prove a naive goal, for in much of South-East Asia it was impossible to re-establish imperial rule, while in Africa the efforts at rationalization paved the way towards independence just as they done previously in India.

<< | >>

↑

Source: Best Antony. International History of the Twentieth Century and Beyond. Routledge,2008. — 638 p.. 2008

The Second World War and empire

More on the topic The Second World War and empire: