Impact of the USA in British decolonisation policy

x.ella.x

What are some examples of the policies that Britain implemented during the decolonisation of Africa that were influenced by the USA?

Reply 1

Napp

What exactly do you mean? As in are you after specific examples or general policy directions?
At any rate, none explicitly linked to America spring to mind as most of the parting policies were engineered to be to our benefit and, incidently, to America. Namely western leaning presidents/parliaments/dictators and so on. In general though, aside from ditching the empire (of which the Americans were a bit meh on) so long as the governments looked to the west (ho ho ho) there arent many policies that were copied from the americans, to my knowledge.
This might be more useful:
https://journals.openedition.org/etudesafricaines/pdf/214

Reply 2

MatureStudent37

Original post by x.ella.x

What are some examples of the policies that Britain implemented during the decolonisation of Africa that were influenced by the USA?

Decolonisation was o its way before WW2. wW2 just sped it up a bit.

The Atlantic charter called for the the inherent belief of self determination.

The OSS under Donovan recruited agents who seemed to be more interested in ensuring European powers were decolonised post war than digging the Japanese and Germans.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Donovan

There was economic tension as well that had brewed with America split along Anglophile and Anglophobe lines.

There was an American politician who’s name escapes me who stated ‘America’s biggest victory in WW2 was the collapse of the British empire.

One of the interesting facts of the allies in WW2, was that Britain and the US didn’t spy on the Soviets. However Stalin played the long game.

As the Americans sped up out decolonisation process the Cold War was in full swing. In every colony we left, the ‘freedom fighters’ we fought were Soviet backed. They’d rent fighting for freedom. They were fighting to put communist regimes in place In order to overthrow the democratic governments we left.

What became known as Britain’s small wars were the rearguard action of the time of a fight against communism.

As I say decolonisation had been planned in advance. Although people will often quote Churchill as wanting India to remain the jewel in the crown. Dominion status for India leading to independence was being discussed in the early 1900s, the U.K. as therefore gone to heat efforts to ensure the indigenous civil service was trained Up to cope. With a few exceptions, British colonies never ended up like other European ex colonies where a postman would become president.

ISTR reading somewhere that Eisenhower claimed his biggest regret was how he treated the U.K. in Suez. He destroyed British prestige which resulted in the US having to pay more for defending the free world during the Cold War.

Reply 3

Napp

Original post by MatureStudent37

Decolonisation was o its way before WW2. wW2 just sped it up a bit.

The Atlantic charter called for the the inherent belief of self determination.

One of the interesting facts of the allies in WW2, was that Britain and the US didn’t spy on the Soviets. However Stalin played the long game.

Do you have a source for this claim? It seems a touch spurious given that everyone has always spied on eachother.. especially their enemies (of which everyone knew the USSR was, even if they were forced to hold their noses for the greater good).

As the Americans sped up out decolonisation process the Cold War was in full swing. In every colony we left, the ‘freedom fighters’ we fought were Soviet backed. They’d rent fighting for freedom. They were fighting to put communist regimes in place In order to overthrow the democratic governments we left.

The beautiful irony being that they can happily be blamed for some of the spectacular messes left in Africa by giving them independence they simply were not ready for.

As I say decolonisation had been planned in advance. Although people will often quote Churchill as wanting India to remain the jewel in the crown. Dominion status for India leading to independence was being discussed in the early 1900s, the U.K. as therefore gone to heat efforts to ensure the indigenous civil service was trained Up to cope. With a few exceptions, British colonies never ended up like other European ex colonies where a postman would become president.

Do you have a source for this claim of decolonisation being on the immediate horizon (your distinct inference in the first paragraph) Having vague discussions about devolving power to the government being no way the same as giving them independence. Especially in 1900 when there was no real clamour for it in India itself (nor was there in the '40's for that matter but thats beside the point).
Or is this more a reference to the British justification that the empire was but a vehicle to civilise the savages ( the world over) and once they were at a suitable level they could be given their freedom. This line of thinking deliberately being vague enough as to have no meaningful timeline.

ISTR reading somewhere that Eisenhower claimed his biggest regret was how he treated the U.K. in Suez. He destroyed British prestige which resulted in the US having to pay more for defending the free world during the Cold War.

Serves him right, it was amusing how it blew up in Americas face either way though.

Reply 4

MatureStudent37

Original post by Napp

In what way? Giving home rule to the white dominions was one thing but the French and British werent about to give up their empires in Africa and Asia just because of Wilsons amusing 14 points.
As you noted the Atlantic Charter, that was during, not before, WWII? Merely codifying the American condition that they were fighting for freedom and not to support the empire.

Do you have a source for this claim? It seems a touch spurious given that everyone has always spied on eachother.. especially their enemies (of which everyone knew the USSR was, even if they were forced to hold their noses for the greater good).

The beautiful irony being that they can happily be blamed for some of the spectacular messes left in Africa by giving them independence they simply were not ready for.

Do you have a source for this claim of decolonisation being on the immediate horizon (your distinct inference in the first paragraph) Having vague discussions about devolving power to the government being no way the same as giving them independence. Especially in 1900 when there was no real clamour for it in India itself (nor was there in the '40's for that matter but thats beside the point).
Or is this more a reference to the British justification that the empire was but a vehicle to civilise the savages ( the world over) and once they were at a suitable level they could be given their freedom. This line of thinking deliberately being vague enough as to have no meaningful timeline.

Serves him right, it was amusing how it blew up in Americas face either way though.

Apologies for not being able to quite each one. My fat fingers on the IPhone combined with not knowing how to do it.

Dominion status was the staring point for getting rid of the empire. It was identified at the start of the 20th century that Empire was becoming an ever increasing financial drain. However, even before that debates were going on about the empire. There were the imperialists who wanted to maintain the empire as a protectionist trading body, and those advocating free trade.

Empire to begin with was the fallout of a global power struggle between the main European nations. Land we’re not only conquered for raw materials , but to act as strategic bases to oppose other nations in power struggles. For example, you may be aware that Goa in India is Portuguese (Britain’s oldest ally), but the French also tried to colonise India. As Britain and France were at war in the 17th and 18th century, they also fought in India against each other. We therefore required those territories under our control so everybody knew the state of affair. (Not just the U.K., but all of the main European powers.)

By the mid 19th century, Britain’s naval dominance pretty much secured her role on the global stage to the point where these colonies weren’t threatened. The entente cordial removed France as a major threat. (Obviously when WW1 kicked off the Germans started things in Africa, )

Now. Having a colony costs money. It costs money because you need to protect it and govern it. But once the threat goes, it becomes cheaper.

Dominion were granted dominion status as there was already a degree of capability to self govern. Other colonies however weren’t as advanced.

The imperial civil service was reliant on locals. Britain ensured that civil servants in these colonies where possible were locals. Educated, trained up and experienced in governing a country. That is at complete odds to other imperial nations such as Belgium, Portugal, Holland and Germany.

So the development of an organic civil service indicates a desire to move away, but these things takes time. You can’t just shove somebody into a senior civil service position. They need to have gone through the system from the bottom Up and know how it works.

This is the reason why many Belgian and French colonies collapsed soon after independence because long term planning hadn’t been underway. There was nobody in charge who knew what they were doing.

The Congo collapsed after Belgium pretty much pulled out over night. Then the Portuguese pulled out of East Timor, within hours the Indonesians were over the border. Nobody was able to stop them as nobody was in charge.

As I’ve said. Cost was a major thing. The U.K.s empire was based on trade and unfettered access to its global markets. In those days it was by sail. Lots of ports were required. It then moved to coal. Less ports were required, when it moved to fuel oil, even less ports, or coaling stations as they were known, were
Required so many of these colonies became less important. Not so much as civilising savages, but securing strategic bases at the time. Bases that become redundant with new technologies and changing political landscapes.

Interesting point for you here. The US government pumped billions into Afghanistan post war and then stopped in the mid 50s. Why do you think that was?

Air travel was becoming increasingly important. Kandahar was seen as a vital hub for air passenger travel in order to refuel aircraft. With the advent of reliable, effective jet passenger aircraft, Kandahar was no longer needed. The Americans stopped investing as they didn’t need the airstrip.

You asked about allies not spying on Russia. ‘The Secret war ‘ by max Hastings. Obviously the usual diplomatic ‘what are the Russians going to do was going on. But Churchill in particular forbade espionage activities against stalin. Stalin had the resources to keeps logging away and played the long game. The allies main focus was defeating Germany and Japan with minimal loss of life.

Suez didn’t blow up in Eisenhower’s face. He has to deal with a Soviet backed Arab nationalist movement who had been embarrassed time and again by their own ineffectiveness. Political tensions that were heightened due to the Hungarian revelation. Eisenhower had to deal with three allies kicking a Soviet satellite state in the balls whilst having to deal with a huge Soviet invasion of Hungary. A pretty difficult situation for and American president who’s country had had to expend blood and treasure twice in the last thirty years sorting out European problems and now had to shoulder the burden of protecting Europe from communist domination because most of Europe seemed to have a desire to embrace right wing or left wing dictatorships. So I’d say suez didn’t really blow up I’m Eisenhower’s face. It merely made sure there was a leader on one side and a leader on the other side.