Question: What did the US do to end the Empire (and empires)?

[Dean_the_Young]

One of the vague things I know about the decline of the British empire is that, in some way, the US acted to force European powers to give up their colonies (unless, as in Vietnam, the colonies looked to be becoming communist).

But what exactly was done? What did the US do, and how did it avoid ruining US-European relations?

 

[Calgacus]

One of the vague things I know about the decline of the British empire is that, in some way, the US acted to force European powers to give up their colonies (unless, as in Vietnam, the colonies looked to be becoming communist).

But what exactly was done? What did the US do, and how did it avoid ruining US-European relations?

The Atlantic Charter and some other dialogue during the war involved US pressure for Britain to 'lose the empire', but I don't think it really worked. Britain mostly lost the empire because it couldn't afford it anymore. The US did step in and take over British areas of influence, praticularly in the Middle East and South America. The one clear example of US interference would be in the Suez Crisis, which apparently Eisenhower later regretted.

 

[King Thomas]

Easy. The USA let Hitler beat the UK half to death and made the UK buy every bullet and bomb and bit of food that it needed (at least until 1941 when Japan kicked the USA and made it join the war too.) By the time WW2 ended the UK was knackered.

 

[Dave Howery]

colonialism was already troubled before WW2.... people were agitating for independence in various places already... the war put everything on hold for a while, but once it was over, the independence movements started up again... I doubt the US had great influence over the whole thing....

 

[cra0422]

colonialism was already troubled before WW2.... people were agitating for independence in various places already... the war put everything on hold for a while, but once it was over, the independence movements started up again... I doubt the US had great influence over the whole thing....

One of the major reasons why colonialism failed was the empires had been held on the basis of so-called "white european supremacy". When thousands of white european troops surrender to Japanese troops, it's kind of hard to maintain that belief.

British colonies like India wanted out of the Empire and there wasn't much Britain could do to stop them. They kind of had a deal like the U.S. did with the Philippines: help us defeat the Japanese and you'll get your independence.

The French and Dutch wanted to keep their colonies in order to save face after being conquered by Germany, and the locals knew the Europeans weren't all they claimed to be. This is largely what led to problems in Vietnam.

 

[Pkmatrix]

In Africa, it was World War II that really pushed the independence movement over the edge. The British and French integrated Africans in to the regular army in the effort against Germany, but didn't anticipate the fact that when the war ended and they went home the Africans would start using what they learned for their own purposes. Sorta like what happened in the Crusades, only Africa is Europe and Europe is the Middle East. Sorta. =/

Anyways, the point is that America really didn't have much influence over what happened in Africa, besides many African countries looking to America as an example of how to create a wealthy, stable, and powerful democracy.

 

[Dutchie]

Around the turn of the century, the US turned away from political colonialism and opted for economic and then cultural colonialism instead. This leads to a more free and felxible system, with the 'colonised' at least nominally having a choice in the matter (in the sense they didn't have to buy coca-cola...).

This set up an alternate view of how world interactions would work (unfortunately, the appropriate but over-used phrase is paradigm shift). By not becoming a persistent colonial power itself - who else gave up places like the Phillipines, Cuba, Nicaraugua, Dominica, Panama, Japan, Germany, etc. etc. without having it taken away by a stronger power - the Americans took away the 'logic' behind having colonial empires.

 

[Locke]

I always thought that the American Revolution gave many colonies the hope and the reason to gain independence, notably during the early 19th century in South America. The colonists and natives figured that if America could do it, then so could they.

 

[birdy]

Easy. The USA let Hitler beat the UK half to death and made the UK buy every bullet and bomb and bit of food that it needed (at least until 1941 when Japan kicked the USA and made it join the war too.) By the time WW2 ended the UK was knackered.

what could the USA have done to prevent the UK's early defeats, ie Norway and France- had the US joined in 39, there would have just been more troops to evacuate from Dunkerque . as to lend lease Roosevelt didnt believe that the centre of the worlds greatest empire could be so poor as Churchill kept telling him. also isnt it likely that just giving the UK everything free would increase support for the Isolationist's?

 

[Dave Howery]

Easy. The USA let Hitler beat the UK half to death and made the UK buy every bullet and bomb and bit of food that it needed (at least until 1941 when Japan kicked the USA and made it join the war too.) By the time WW2 ended the UK was knackered.

so, you think if WW2 hadn't happened, that the British Empire would have went on forever? That there wasn't any agitation for independence already?

 

[Jordat]

In answer to the original question, like Calgacus said, you're probably thinking of the Atlantic charter.

The right to self determination for all and lowered trade barriers kind of put the nail in the coffin of colonisation (although like Dave Howery said, it was on its way out anyway, India for example had a big indpendance movement since maybe the 20's (probably before))

The British Empire (and colonialism in general) couldn't have lasted forever, but if it maybe had not ended so abruptly after 1945, a more organised de-colonization and a much stronger Commonwealth would have been the result. Which, dare I say it, may actually have led to a slightly more stable world.

 

[PMN1]

Roosevelt apparently had some intresting views on what should happen to Europe and its empires...

From ‘Warlords, the heart of conflict 1939 – 1945’ by Simon Berthon and Joanna Potts.

Page 131

But as the war ground on, Churchill began to see a new threat to Europe – the man who had become the third ally in the fight against Hitler, Joseph Stalin. In late 1942 he told Anthony Eden: ‘It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarianism overlaid the ancient state of Europe.’

Roosevelt thought otherwise. As far as he was concerned, the cause of war in the first place was the in fighting between Europe’s ancient, imperialist nations and he began to see in Stalin someone who would help him in his great cause of freeing the world of that Imperialism. Also in 1942, in a conversation with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York, he remarked: ‘The European people will simply have to endure Russian domination in the hope that – in ten or 20 years – the European influence will bring the Russians to become less barbarous.’


This is taken from ‘The Roosevelt Letters: Being the Personnel Correspondence of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Vol.3: 1928 – 1945.

 

[Larrikin]

US actions

The US, after the Great War, insisted the GB, and only GB, paid GB's war time debts. At one point Germany offered to take over all of GB's payments to the US in exchange for their reparations payments to GB. The US nixed it, as they wanted GB's economy under as much stress as possible. This led to much of the fiscal problems leading up to and during WWII.

 

[King Thomas]

I think without WW2 India would have been free by 1950 because of Gandhi but Africa would have to wait until the 1970's/1980's.It would be giving it up gracefully rather then falling down the stairs.

 

[Bulldawg85]

Weimar

Larrikin

The US, after the Great War, insisted the GB, and only GB, paid GB's war time debts. At one point Germany offered to take over all of GB's payments to the US in exchange for their reparations payments to GB. The US nixed it, as they wanted GB's economy under as much stress as possible. This led to much of the fiscal problems leading up to and during WWII.

Please give us the factual citation where Weimar Germany or the Nazis had offered to pay off GB's WWI debt to the US.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Please give us the factual citation where Weimar Germany or the Nazis had offered to pay off GB's WWI debt to the US.

Actually, he has it a bit reversed, though I can't provide a source.

After WW1, the Entente powers (Britain and France), handicapped by debt to the US, tried to shift the burden onto the Weimar Republic. The Entente logic was along the lines of "the Germans pay reperations to us, and we just use that money to pay you, so we'll eliminate the middle man. Germany will stop paying reperations to us, but in exchange they'll take the burden of our loans."

The US declined, citing I believe Germany's bad credit score at the time.

 

[Max Sinister]

And in 1932 the debts of Germany were cancelled anyway for a one-time payment. Seems at this time the allies thought it was futile anyway.

 

[Johnnyreb]

The USAs pressure was essentially financial, the UK having spent itself out. The USA largely stole its export markets, but direct pressure to end the Empire...

Apart from this, you can't look at the Empire as a sort of block, there were different considerations for different sections. Australia, NZ & Canada are traditionally regarded as part of "the Empire" but had been self-governing for a long time, as had South Africa. It was the trade aspect that influenced these nations.

India was a special case and it had been generally recognised that they were going to get independance evn before WW2. Churchill may have huffed and puffed, but even he agreed by 1942.

Interestingly, Corelli Barnett is of the opinion that the only part of the Empire which was worth anything at all to the UK was Malaya (rubber and tin.) All the rest, including India, were loss-makers.

The African colonies, I'm afraid, were really not worth anything. But the white farmers carried a lot of political clout in the UK. Also, the UK governments were quite responsible and did not believe in upstakes and sodding off, without development of some sort of political, legal, military and economic framework to take over. It's instructive to contrast the British pull-out from, say, Ghana, to the Belgians pull-out from the Congo.

 

[Darkling]

I knew FDR was soft on Stalin and obsessed with Britain's empire but Jesus.....

The Americans undermined Britain's economy, mainly with lend lease, Suez was a loss of face brought about by the Americans and there was some undermining of the British in India during the war with many commentators complaining about Americans dying to preserve Britain's empire (although apparently Russia's empire was fine).

Mainly the economics though, in crippling Britain's exports (through Lend lease) and forcing the dismantling of trade barriers around various parts of the Empire.

Although Labour's desire to get rid of the Empire for ideological reasons (and the Tories for monetary reasons) was also as important if not more so, on top of the obvious loss of economic power because of the wars.

 

[AMF]

I knew FDR was soft on Stalin and obsessed with Britain's empire but Jesus.....

The Americans undermined Britain's economy, mainly with lend lease, ....

Mainly the economics though, in crippling Britain's exports (through Lend lease) ....

Darkling, I am not going to quarrel with the other things you have written, but how can Lend and Lease, which meant that the US gave tanks, trucks, warplanes and other war materiel to Britain, the Soviet Union and other Allies for free for the duration of WW II, mean that the US crippled Britain's exports?