Did America force Britain under the table to abdandon her colonies after WW2?

Answer 1

I agree with everything that “Hobilar” has written ... EXCEPT for his summary statement, in which he says: “This is a popular American myth. Such an act would have been a blatant act of interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country.”

In my opinion, American policy and actions did indeed have the effect of forcing Britain to abandon its colonies after WW2.

That does not mean that I “blame” America for the fate of the British Empire. According to modern notions of “correctness” in international politics, a country that forces another country to get rid of an Empire should be praised, not blamed. Besides, although America’s WW2 leaders WANTED Britain to lose its Empire, that does not mean that they absolutely FORCED Britain to do so. And, more than anything else, it was Britain’s own policies and actions that forced Britain to abandon its Empire.

- - - - -

There can, however, be no doubt about the hostility of America’s leadership to the British Empire. Reared on the notion that their own Revolution had been a high-principled popular uprising against tyrannical foreign rule, America’s leaders regarded the British Empire with extreme suspicion and distaste.

FDR was outspoken about it. In his view, the British colonial system could be summarized as: “Exploit the resources of an India, a Burma, a Java. Take all of the wealth out of those countries. But never put anything back.”

Naively trusting of Stalin, sycophantic towards Chiang Kai-shek, Roosevelt was deeply suspicious of Churchill’s enthusiasm for Empire. What Roosevelt wanted for an ideal post-war world was no colonies; but instead a temporary “trusteeship” that would pave the way for independence for everyone. Well, not quite for “everyone”: curiously, Roosevelt did not feel that Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands - all American colonies by anyone else’s standards - should be included in his “trusteeship” rule.

I leave it up to Roosevelt experts to decide whether this contradiction was an example of cynical hypocrisy; or of chauvinistic blindness. But observers in Washington noted the paradox that America, the very cradle of modern anti-Imperialism, was at the same time itself in the process of founding its own Empire. And in some ways, it seems that Roosevelt himself got the message: on one occasion, after he had been lecturing Churchill on the subject of India’s future, Churchill retorted that he would happily take note of the President’s views – if Roosevelt would consent to a team of international inspectors being commissioned to investigate race relations in the American Deep South; that silenced Roosevelt.

- - - - -

However, in 1940 Britain made a choice that would mortgage its Empire; and in 1945, Britain made another choice that would cost it its Empire.

The 1940 choice was, simply, to keep fighting Hitler after the fall of France. That was Churchill’s choice. Ironic: the arch-Imperialistic, having to decide that the lesser of evils required him to hazard his beloved Empire.

Without American money, the British war effort would have collapsed. Lend-Lease alone, in which America supplied Britain with arms, etc. on credit, cost Britain $26 billion. And America drove hard bargains for its financial support: peace on Hitler’s terms would have cost Britain less. Unlike America’s other eventual Allies, Britain was required to pay her debts in full. By the end of WW2, Britain owed foreign creditors more than $40 billion. Britain was bankrupt.

Then, in 1945, Britain elected a Socialist government, with ambitions to build a cradle-to-grave Welfare State for Britain’s citizens. That was going to be enormously expensive. The British economy was utterly disrupted by the war. The country that had so recently been “the world’s banker” had been transformed into one of the world’s impoverished debtors. The Empire had long since ceased to be a profitable concern. Britain did what all bankrupt businesses have to do: it got rid of its loss-makers.

- - - - -

As Hobilar so correctly states, Britain did not withdraw from ALL of its colonial possessions and protectorates immediately after WW2. Many areas – particularly in Africa – were not granted full independence until the 1960’s.

But America did indeed drive one final nail into the coffin of the British Empire – at Suez in 1956.

- - - - -

Perhaps, in later years, some American leaders came to regret that Suez response.

And, perhaps, some American leaders today might reflect on how Britain came to lose the largest empire that the world had ever known. Embroilment in war, leading to a great piling up of debt owed to other nations. A political party, apparently poised for a great election victory, full of plans to increase welfare programs and the general level of government control over its citizens’ lives. Sound familiar?

Answer 2

here self sustaining Commonwealth countries volunteered to combat alongside Britain and France after Poland became invaded: - Australia - Canada - Newfoundland - New Zealand - South Africa there is a few pointless debate and errors being thrown approximately how lots of the above countries have been colonies of the united kingdom. lots of the "Dominions" have been in fact self sustaining, with ties to the united kingdom Parliament in call basically. those countries volunteered, and did no longer combat below Britain British colonies that deliver troops blanketed: - British Ethiopia - British Somaliand - Gold Coast - India (somewhat no longer a rustic on the time, and contributed the British Indian military - a stress led by way of British officers) - Malaya (inclusive of Singapore) - Nigeria - Northern Rhodesia - Southern Rhodesia - Sudan --- As for why the would desire to study the contributions of different countries in WW2? i'm taken aback you somewhat have such coaching interior the 1st place. once you're studying approximately why issues the way they're today, you will desire to work out issues from all sides. Why brought about the Germans and the jap start up conflict interior the 1st place? What did the hot Zealanders do in Crete jointly as united states of america became nonetheless impartial? How is the wartime alliance correct to today's international?

Answer 3

Not at all-This is a popular American myth. Such an act would have been a blatant act of interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country.

In fact the British Government has already decided to replace its overseas' colonies, with what would eventually become the 'Commonwealth of Nations', by the Statute of Westminster (1931). Many of the larger dominions already had self-government by the start of the Second World War (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland etc). Only three countries gained independence immediately following the ending of the war (India, Pakistan and Burma-Of which only Burma declined to join the Commonwealth). Most of the other nations who would eventually gain independance not happening until between 1961-1967 (when British interest was more directed to the economic advantage of unity with Europe).

Answer 4

Yes . The USA was opposed to the concept of the British Empire and did not support any independent action by British forces overseas.
During the invasion of Egypt in 1956 by British , French and Israeli forces which was an attempt to regain control of the Suez Canal from Colonell Nasser the USA successfully used every diplomatic and economic pressure to get Britain to withdraw.
The Suez Canal was a vital link to Britains colonies in the Far East.
During the Falklands War in 1982 the USA stayed neutral but it always expects support from Britain for its wars such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

Answer 5

I don't think so. Britian had her hnds full with rebuilding. They took great pride with "the sun never set on the English flag" but now was the time when they had to admit, they had to stop and think of their own faith and, hope they could rebuild their own country after the war.