|
Much of Asia and Africa at the beginning of the 20th century had been colonized or under various forms of European control. World war I had weakened the European powers and their were stirings of nationalism, especially in China and India, but the European colonial empires still dominated much of the world through World War II. Those empires, however, could no longer be sustained. The War had further weakened the European powers. In addition, issues raised by the War, namely Fascist and Japanese efforts to create empires, undercut the moral justification of European empires. In addition, Socialist parties opposed to colonialism power or influenced public policies in Europe. The Soviet Union also promoted anti-colonial policies which was very effective for Communist parties in the colonies. The Soviet Union at the same time was creating its own empire in Eastern Europe. World War II has inspired nationalist groups in the European colonies, especially in the countries occupied by the Japanese. Fascist propganda had proven effective in the Arab world. Many nationalists saw the weakness of the colonial regimes and independence movements grew in strength. Here the British decession to grant independence to India was a major turning point (1947). The decolonization process varied greatly from country to country. India had been the jewel in the Crown. Britain's decession meant that it was only a matter of time before other colonies were granted independence. Wars of national liberation forced both the Netherlands (Indonesia) and France (Vietnam and Algeria) to move toward granting independence to their colonies. Independence was greated with great optimism throughout Asia and Africa. In most cases the heady optimism of independence has not been realized. In most of the newly independent countries, the standards of living and levels of personal freedom have actually declined since independence. In large measure this is because the independemce movements of the 1950s and 60s were strongly influenced by Socialist and Communist thought and failed to recognize the political and economic structures in the West that had created productive and just societies.
European colonialism at it's heighth in the late 19th century dominated much of Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. The coloninization of the Americas (16th-17th century) and India (18th century) was followed in the 19th century with creation of colonia enclaves in China, the Scramble for Africa, and gunboat diplomacy. The actual colonial regimes varied from country to country. Perhaps the most pernicious was the Belgian rule of the Congo. But the desire to exploit the colonies economically and te prevalent doctrines of religious intolerance, social Darwinism, and white superority created situations in which great harm was done to colonial peoples. The colonial regimes were often justified by paternalistic Victoriam morality, but rarely did pious good intentions result in imrovements in regimes benfitting native people. Many third world countries continue to blame imperialism for their current difficulties. Some of these charge are valid, in many other instances they ar used to mask varing levels of corruption, ineptitude, and venile behavior. Despite the exploitative nature of imperialism, the overall impact is more complicated than often depicted. Imperialism did speed the spred of modern technology and medicine to Aia and Africa. As critical as Indians were of the British, the heritage of British law, democracy, and English law are crutical elements of modern India. Another still unsettled question is whether the colonies really returned mote than the military and admistrative cost of maintainung them. Here economists are deeply divided. Some charge is that colonial peoples suffered because the colonial power dumped inferior goods on protectedcolonial markets. This was not the case for the British Empire which except for relatively brief periods (such as the Depression) was a free market empire. One not well understood aspect of European colonial rule was the class structure introduced there.
Much of Asia and Africa at the beginning of the 20th century had been colonized or under various forms of European control. With the outbreak of World War I (1914-18). Colonial peoples joined in the War. They helped both Britain and rance prevail. Some, especially the Indians, expecte to be rewarded with greater autonomy and partocipation in public affairs. World War I had disatoriusly weakened the European powers. In addition there were stirings of nationalism, especially in China and India. Chiang and the Nationalists suceded in ending most of the Treaty Ports. Ghandi in India launched his non-violent campaign. The Britih were moving toward home rule, but the Imperial Round Table Conference failed to reach any consensus. This only concernd the future of India, but such was th importnce of Britain an India, it had enormous repercutions throuhjout the Third world. There was virtually no movement toward de-colonization in Africa. and in fact Italy invaded and colonized Ethiopia (1935), one of the few independent Africn states. The Soviets roundly criticized colonialism winning many adherents in the Third World. t the same time they pusued nearly genocidal violence against the colonized people unfer their control. Even so, highly succesful Soviet propaganda hid this from public view. The Europens had begun founding schools, in many cases the work of missionaries. Thus during the inter-War era, the whole imperial structure began to be challenged. The European colonial empires still dominated much of the world through World War II (1939-45).
Colinization in our modern age is most associated with the Western European maritime nations. Rusia is often not included in the list of colonial powers. But actually Tsarist Russian policy in Central Asia and Siberia was just another version of the colonial policies of the Western European powers, albeit in an area connected geographically. The Bolsheviks after World War I attempted to replicate Tsarist policy only with Communism rther than Orthodox Christianity as the imperial mantra. The Bolsheviks also adopted Pan-Slavism. After World War II, Stalian seized the opportunity to expand Soviet imperial control beyond the boundaries of the old tsarist empire deep into Europe. The Soviet Union created the largest imperial structure in history outside of the medieval Mongol Empire. Unlike the Mongols, the Soviets were stopped by n equally powerful, but not imperial power--the United States. Interestingly, left-wing thought so permeted the political discoure that during the Cold War that you often heard the term American Empire or colonialism being used--but rarely the Soviet Empire or Soviet colonialism. Any consideration of the defintion of empire and colonialism, however, leads one to the conclusion that it was the Soviets that were the imperial/colonial power.
World War II like World War I was primarily fought in Europe. The central campaign of the War proved to be the epic struggle on the Eastern Front. There was, however, more fighting during World War II in both Asia and Africa. The fighting in Europe, significantly weakened the European poweres. The fighting in Africa and Asia not only introduced new ideas, bit showed the colonial people how fragole European control was. Here the process varied significantly from country to country.
After World War II, the European empires could no longer be sustained. The War had further weakened the European powers. In addition, issues raised by the War, namely Fascist and Japanese efforts to create empires, undercut the idea that European power was unassailable. And Communist/Socialist ideology undercut moral justification of European empires. In addition, Socialist parties opposed to colonialism power or influenced public policies in Europe. At the same time, Socilist ideology achieved wide currency in the West. The Soviet Union also promoted anti-colonial policies and lent aid to Communist parties in the colonies. Perhaps more importnt, weaponry provided by the Soviets made it impossible for the Europens to direct the decolonization process or slow it down to give Third World leaders and populations time to more carefully pursue the process. Many nationalists saw the weakness of the colonial regimes and independence movements grew in strength. Among these movements there was little support for either democracy or capitalism. Here the British decession to grant independence to India was a major turning point (1947). The decolonization process varied greatly from country to country. India had been the jewel in the Crown. And unlike the rest of the Third World, the Indians did embrace democracy, but the new leaders like other Third World leaders were convinced that Socialism was not only more just, but was aaster route to economic development. World War II has inspired nationalist groups in the European colonies, especially in the countries occupied by the Japanese. Fascist propganda had proven effective in the Arab world. Britain's decession on India meant that it was only a matter of time before other colonies were granted independence.
Wars of national liberation forced both the Netherlands (Indonesia) and France (Vietnam and Algeria) to move toward granting independence to their colonies. The British managed to defeat a Communist insurgency in Malaya. The situation in Africa was more complicated. The Brutish fought the Mau-Mau insurgency in Kenya (1950s), but decided aginst further expensives wars. And proceded to grant indeoendence to their colonies. Most decided to break relations with the Comminwealth. The French made the same decesion, but were more sucesfulthn the British in establish long-term reltionships. The Portuguese resisted decoloniztion the longest and as aesult wars of national liberation. Several newly dependent Africa countries declared Marxist states, but in each case there was economic failure--in several cases famine.
Independence was greated with great optimism throughout Africa, America (Latin). Asia, and Oceania. In most cases the heady optimism of independence has not been realized. In most of the newly independent countries, the standards of living and levels of personal freedom have actually declined since independence. In large measure this is because the independemce movements of the 1950s and 60s were strongly influenced by Socialist and Communist thought and failed to recognize the political and economic structures in the West that had created productive and just societies. Violence raged in several countries and by 1960 it was no longer pimarily the resistanve of the colonial powers. A range of unanticipated problems emerged. In Africa, tribalism proved a deadadly cocktail in several countries. Religion also proved deadly in South Asia. Many of the countries got involved in the Cold War. Most European countries rapidly exited from their countries. The major exceptions were the Dutch (Indoinesia), French (Algeria and Vietnam), but by 1960 there was little resistnce to de-colonization. It was only the Portuguese tring to hold on to their colonies. , but by 1960 Few of the countries were properly prepared for independemnce. Not only did many colonies not benefit from de-colonization, but the European colonial powers found in sharp contrast to expectations that their economomies were not adversely affected by de-coloniztion.
Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Return to Main 20th century page]
[Introduction]
[Biographies]
[Chronology]
[Climatology]
[Clothing]
[Disease and Health]
[Economics]
[Geography]
[History]
[Human Nature]
[Law]
[Nationalism]
[Presidents]
[Religion]
[Royalty]
[Science]
[Social Class]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glossaries]
[Images]
[Links]
[Registration]
[Tools]
[Children in History Home]
