Approaches to Decolonization
With the devastation that came with World War Two, the two former great powers of the world Britain and France both face a common dilemma: the breakaway of its colonies from the motherland (Kolb, 2009:162). The main difference between the how the two nations acted later on came down to their presence in their colonies. The French namely attempted to regain control in Indochina and Algeria, while the British were allowing her colonies to become independent even before World War Two begun, namely Australia and Canada (Smith, 1979:94).
Historically, British policy allowed them to openly declare acts in parliament that they prepared to give up control of its colonies, The Government of India Act 1919 is a great example of Britain establishing a tradition of allowing a colony to become independent (Smith, 1979: 73). But why would Britain voluntarily relinquish control of one of its colonies? Nicholas White (2000:546) eruditely argues, the British peaceful decolonization approach could have been explained as a method to retain trade amongst its former colonies, as improved relations between British businessmen could lead to better relations of former colonies and Britain itself, while Britain moves away as an empire and concentrates on more European matters.
The French approach to its colonial issue was an attempt t create a "French Union," as Title VIII of the Fourth Republic's constitution addressed this issue. The "French Union" was nothing like a union but rather a grip on its colonies, allowing the French government access and control to its colonies resources and calling for a common defence pact in French interests, clearly the Fourth Republics government was more keen on retaining its colonies rather than following the British example of relinquishing control and giving independence (Smith, 1979: 74). A reason for this could be that the French government would want its colonies to later come under direct French control through assimilation through time. (Smith, 1979: 74).
However, this is not to claim that the French were the only ones who engaged in military actions against its former colonies. One thing the British and French did have in common was military action against its former colonies that were taken by the Japanese during World War Two. With the fall of Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam swiftly began their own independent movements that had huge association with communist ideology. The only difference was the French could not regain control of Vietnam while the British were able to regain Malaysia for a short period of time before granting its independence as a democratic non-communist state (Cooper, 2001:200).
The structure of the colonial regimes led to the partake of certain actions. Since the French would impose direct control of their colonies while the British had more of a decentralized dominion system did not foster a debate of whether the subject was a citizen of the Empire, rather the creation of a "commonwealth citizen" (Cooper, 2001:202). Responses to political movements were of vital importance, as the British had a long history of liberal ideology where the government has to recognize the people's inalienable rights to political freedom and assembly, it would be hypocritical of the British Parliament to respond violently or unlawfully, such as the French with their harsh response to independence movement including mass imprisonment and sometimes capital punishment without any judicial oversight (Cooper 2001, 204).
A large factor involved in the outcome of decolonization is local conditions. Although French Colonial reformations remained throughout the same (reforms over time but kept French rule within the colonies), the situation in Indochina and Algeria were much more affected by the events of World War Two as compared to Madagascar (Smith, 1979: 84). De Gaulle's government were fiercely resolute in keeping Vietnam under their control after the Japanese relinquished their short lived empire in South East Asia. To expel the Vietminh from Haiphong, the French decided in their strategic brilliance to shell the city, taking the lives of many civilians (Smith, 1979:85). This caused major resentment against the French Government and increased the popularity of the Vietminh and led to a coup in Hanoi, firing the first shots of the "Vietnam War," where later it turned to a much larger war involving the two superpowers, USSR (supplying arms) and USA (sending troops) (Smith, 1979:85).
British decolonization could be argued as "new imperialism" as major British business', especially those in the natural resource industry remained in strong control of their business in the former colonies (White, 2000: 563). British military intervention in its former colonies only occurred for major economic and military reasons, either preventing communism in Malay or getting involved in the Suez Crisis, rather than political reasons as compared to the French. The Suez Crisis is one example of major military intervention as the Suez Canal provided two thirds of all the oil shipping into Europe. The nationalization of the Suez Canal by the Egyptian government was a major confrontation to British and French imperial and economic power (White, 2000: 555). However, it is also possible that the Suez Canal being kept British was of vital importance to the Royal Navy if they need to travel from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean in quick notice, as the Suez is a strategic port in transferring arms from Europe to Asia (White, 2000: 555).
As this essay has presented, the French clearly intervenes militarily within their colony for a revival of French power in Post-War Europe, whereas the British have already accepted their fate for the end of their empire. Although the British did relinquish control of colonies with a clear majority Anglo population (Australia, Canada, New Zealand), but they already begun a process of further decolonization with non-anglo parts of their empire beginning with the end of the British Raj with the Government of India Act 1919 (Smith, 1979:73). It is clear that the British were more successful in their process of decolonization as many of its colonies relates to Britain herself with the creation of the commonwealth, where member states may choose to withdraw as compared to the French Union, where the French government attempted to regain control of their former colonies.
Work Cited
Cooper, F, Reconstructing Empire in British and French Africa. Past & Present : Post-War Reconstruction in Europe: International, 2001, p196.
Kolb, C, Decolonization and Its Impact: A Comparative Approach to the End of the Colonial Empires. Journal of World History 2009 p160-163.
Osborne, M, Indochina: An Ambiguous Colonization, 1858-1954. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 2010, p302-304
Smith, T, A Comparative Study of French and British Decolonization
Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1978, p70-102
STOCKWELL, A, British Decolonisation: The Record and the Records.Contemporary European History, 2006 p573-583.
White, N. The business and the politics of decolonization: the British experience in the twentieth century. Economic History Review, 2000 p544-564.
With the devastation that came with World War Two, the two former great powers of the world Britain and France both face a common dilemma: the breakaway of its colonies from the motherland (Kolb, 2009:162). The main difference between the how the two nations acted later on came down to their presence in their colonies. The French namely attempted to regain control in Indochina and Algeria, while the British were allowing her colonies to become independent even before World War Two begun, namely Australia and Canada (Smith, 1979:94).
Historically, British policy allowed them to openly declare acts in parliament that they prepared to give up control of its colonies, The Government of India Act 1919 is a great example of Britain establishing a tradition of allowing a colony to become independent (Smith, 1979: 73). But why would Britain voluntarily relinquish control of one of its colonies? Nicholas White (2000:546) eruditely argues, the British peaceful decolonization approach could have been explained as a method to retain trade amongst its former colonies, as improved relations between British businessmen could lead to better relations of former colonies and Britain itself, while Britain moves away as an empire and concentrates on more European matters.
The French approach to its colonial issue was an attempt t create a "French Union," as Title VIII of the Fourth Republic's constitution addressed this issue. The "French Union" was nothing like a union but rather a grip on its colonies, allowing the French government access and control to its colonies resources and calling for a common defence pact in French interests, clearly the Fourth Republics government was more keen on retaining its colonies rather than following the British example of relinquishing control and giving independence (Smith, 1979: 74). A reason for this could be that the French government would want its colonies to later come under direct French control through assimilation through time. (Smith, 1979: 74).
However, this is not to claim that the French were the only ones who engaged in military actions against its former colonies. One thing the British and French did have in common was military action against its former colonies that were taken by the Japanese during World War Two. With the fall of Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam swiftly began their own independent movements that had huge association with communist ideology. The only difference was the French could not regain control of Vietnam while the British were able to regain Malaysia for a short period of time before granting its independence as a democratic non-communist state (Cooper, 2001:200).
The structure of the colonial regimes led to the partake of certain actions. Since the French would impose direct control of their colonies while the British had more of a decentralized dominion system did not foster a debate of whether the subject was a citizen of the Empire, rather the creation of a "commonwealth citizen" (Cooper, 2001:202). Responses to political movements were of vital importance, as the British had a long history of liberal ideology where the government has to recognize the people's inalienable rights to political freedom and assembly, it would be hypocritical of the British Parliament to respond violently or unlawfully, such as the French with their harsh response to independence movement including mass imprisonment and sometimes capital punishment without any judicial oversight (Cooper 2001, 204).
A large factor involved in the outcome of decolonization is local conditions. Although French Colonial reformations remained throughout the same (reforms over time but kept French rule within the colonies), the situation in Indochina and Algeria were much more affected by the events of World War Two as compared to Madagascar (Smith, 1979: 84). De Gaulle's government were fiercely resolute in keeping Vietnam under their control after the Japanese relinquished their short lived empire in South East Asia. To expel the Vietminh from Haiphong, the French decided in their strategic brilliance to shell the city, taking the lives of many civilians (Smith, 1979:85). This caused major resentment against the French Government and increased the popularity of the Vietminh and led to a coup in Hanoi, firing the first shots of the "Vietnam War," where later it turned to a much larger war involving the two superpowers, USSR (supplying arms) and USA (sending troops) (Smith, 1979:85).
British decolonization could be argued as "new imperialism" as major British business', especially those in the natural resource industry remained in strong control of their business in the former colonies (White, 2000: 563). British military intervention in its former colonies only occurred for major economic and military reasons, either preventing communism in Malay or getting involved in the Suez Crisis, rather than political reasons as compared to the French. The Suez Crisis is one example of major military intervention as the Suez Canal provided two thirds of all the oil shipping into Europe. The nationalization of the Suez Canal by the Egyptian government was a major confrontation to British and French imperial and economic power (White, 2000: 555). However, it is also possible that the Suez Canal being kept British was of vital importance to the Royal Navy if they need to travel from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean in quick notice, as the Suez is a strategic port in transferring arms from Europe to Asia (White, 2000: 555).
As this essay has presented, the French clearly intervenes militarily within their colony for a revival of French power in Post-War Europe, whereas the British have already accepted their fate for the end of their empire. Although the British did relinquish control of colonies with a clear majority Anglo population (Australia, Canada, New Zealand), but they already begun a process of further decolonization with non-anglo parts of their empire beginning with the end of the British Raj with the Government of India Act 1919 (Smith, 1979:73). It is clear that the British were more successful in their process of decolonization as many of its colonies relates to Britain herself with the creation of the commonwealth, where member states may choose to withdraw as compared to the French Union, where the French government attempted to regain control of their former colonies.
Work Cited
Cooper, F, Reconstructing Empire in British and French Africa. Past & Present : Post-War Reconstruction in Europe: International, 2001, p196.
Kolb, C, Decolonization and Its Impact: A Comparative Approach to the End of the Colonial Empires. Journal of World History 2009 p160-163.
Osborne, M, Indochina: An Ambiguous Colonization, 1858-1954. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 2010, p302-304
Smith, T, A Comparative Study of French and British Decolonization
Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1978, p70-102
STOCKWELL, A, British Decolonisation: The Record and the Records.Contemporary European History, 2006 p573-583.
White, N. The business and the politics of decolonization: the British experience in the twentieth century. Economic History Review, 2000 p544-564.
