II.

General Causes and Characteristics

Three interconnected factors produced large-scale decolonization in the years after 1945. Opposition developed within the non-self-governing territories to the continuation of colonial rule. Some colonial powers introduced political and constitutional changes that aimed eventually to transfer power. Also power-political changes in the international system, linked especially to World War II and the developing Cold War, compelled disengagement from the colonies.

Organized opposition to colonial rule, often referred to as nationalist movements, emerged at different times and took different forms. Initially, political pressure for self-government or independence came from elite groups, but in India, the Indian National Congress had become a mass movement challenging British rule by 1918. In Africa, conversely, no anti-colonial party capable of appealing to broad sections of the population emerged until after World War II. The origins of such movements often lay in the social and economic changes taking place within the colonial territories, and in the desire to replace traditional sources of authority, who had often benefited from collaboration with colonial rulers.

Early political organizations demanding greater self-government and/or independence were given a boost by World War II. A war fought for freedom was interpreted by many educated Asians and Africans as a war that would lead to independence from colonial rule. In Asia, the Japanese conquest of the British, French, and Dutch territories destroyed the old myth of the invincibility and superiority of the white man. Many colonial subjects enlisted in the armies fighting against the evils of fascism and the racist ideas of National Socialism. They often served far from their native towns and villages and were exposed to new ideas and experiences, including Western ideas of freedom and democracy.

As colonialism was challenged, colonial rulers attempted to justify their roles. From the late 1930s in the United Kingdom, officials saw themselves as having a more active role in preparing peoples at less “advanced” stages of development for self-government. This process was seen as encouraging a Western democratic system and laying the foundations for the social and economic progress that had already taken place in Europe and North America. After World War II, and however exploitative European enterprises may have been, both France and Britain spent metropolitan taxpayers’ money to encourage social and economic development in their overseas territories, and to change the nature of colonial rule.

In the post-1945 period, the new international order also influenced the decolonization process. The weakening of all the Western powers apart from the United States also made it more difficult for colonialism to be maintained by force. By and large, those powers who tried to defeat anti-colonial movements by military means had only limited success. Their efforts were usually justified in terms of the Cold War and the overall Western interest in containing the Communist threat. Yet, while the Cold War could be a reason for maintaining colonial rule, from the mid-1950s it could also be a reason for ending it. The creation of independent states with pro-Western leaders was an important Cold War goal. It could mean a speeding up of the transfer of power in order to prevent more radical groups from gaining influence. In economic terms, new patterns of international trade emerged in the 1940s and 1950s that were based more on trade between the developed nations and less on the exchange of manufactured goods for produce and raw materials. While this was not necessarily a reason for decolonizing, it certainly provided no incentive to oppose it.