Decolonization of british empire

how would you describe the era of decolonization? What factors contributed to the disintergration of the British empire? Did decolonization have similar consequences in different parts of the world??

Thank you very much .
I am almost done with my essay, but i just need to make sure my ideas are correct.
Thank you
 
A) whats with the :mad: face B) Decolonization of British Empire is post-1900

any ways the main factors in Decolonization was cost, after two World Wars, the UK was close to broke and didn't/couldn't pay for the up keep of an Empire that wasn't doing much for them at that point.
 
Thz. Thats what i got. BUt what's the difference of the impact of decolonization on the colonies?
I said that ex-colonies faced hug debt and famine. Religious hostilities were also the cause of the British imperialism since they just mixed random tribes together.
 
Thz. Thats what i got. BUt what's the difference of the impact of decolonization on the colonies?
I said that ex-colonies faced hug debt and famine. Religious hostilities were also the cause of the British imperialism since they just mixed random tribes together.

that'd be part of it, personally I feel one of the issues was the leaders, the Brits didn't spend a lot of money on roads or school in Africa (I'm guessing this is where you mean) so you have a tribal area being run by western 20th century government, a small number African went to the UK (and else where) for college and learned western ways, went home and didn't understand they couldn't remake the UK in Africa (lack of development) the Brits also worked hard on making workable armies, so they took over in a number of place when the early leaders were unable to get things down (Idi Amin comes to mind)
 
Initial decolonisation looked a bed of roses, educated leaders in suits, able to hold their place at the negotiating table, economies that were balanced etc

The problem was that this was a shell

Tribal rivalries had long been held down and in check by a combination of the greater British army, loyalty to the British monarch, and inertia

Once independence came, these things became more problematic - if the country used the army to put down tribes then the army gained a hold on power, if they didn't then things could soon become a split between the cities and the country and civil war

Economies that were balanced spun out of control, and its VERY hard to get them back in balance

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Pressure from the colonies for independence.
Pressure from the US to de-colonise.
Home economic pressures.
Lack of a reason to keep them (especially ones without English populations).
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Things probably would have been better if the Brits had stuck around just a bit longer to help build up more infrastructure in their African colonies, which many independence parties originally wanted. Then Suez came and "just a few more years" became "BRITS OUT NOW!" in the major colonies, and so the Brits more or less did just that.

Obviously there was more to it than this, but Suez was a major event in the history of decolonization. If Britain had stuck around until the late mid- to late-70s, things likely would have been better.

I'd like to just say that I'm not at all for imperialism or colonialism, I just don't think that it's a good idea to cut and run once the system is already in place.
 
Last edited:
Top