I note that even in 1945 it was thought of as a “Superpower” along with the USSR and the USA. Though by this stage it may have been nothing more than an illusion who or what caused the empire to collapse so suddenly? I note that in the space of 15 years most of it gained independance. Is the world a better place since the fall of colonialism, what do you think?
Well the main reasons were economic.
WW1, The Great Depression of the 1930’s and then WW2, all happened one after the other, and exhausted Britain financially.
In 1945 Britain was still a military Superpower, with a huge Army, Navy and Air Force, but Britain was financially in a ruinous state, and Britain itself badly needed rebuilding, and this was the priority.
Actually, it did not suddenly collapse, but began with the British Mandate ending in the Middle East in 1933 and ending with Hong Kong in 1997.
IMPORTANT POINT -There was also no major military confrontations with the British, apart from with the Mau Mau in Kenya and Communist Rebels in Malaysia, the British won both of these conflicts. Britain decolonised over a period of around 30 years, almost always peacefully, and without any major challenges from the colonials, at least not militarily.
Prior to WW2 Britain ended its control of much of the Middle East, with Iraq, Jordan, Saudi, The Gulf States etc becoming independent. Canada, Australia and New Zealand were already Semi Independent Dominions by then.
Between 1947 and 1950, India, Pakistan, Israel and Burma becoming independent.
Then in the 1950’s Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, South Africa,Malaysia, Nepal became independent.
In the 1960’s Zambia, Tanzania, Malawi, Botswana, Uganda, Sierra Leone, The Gambia, Cameroon, Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados, Bahamas, Guyana, Singapore, Brunei, Cyprus, Malta,Belize, Papua, Tonga, Fiji, Samoa, Mauritius etc all became independent.
In the 1970’s Britain pulled out of Aden(Yemen), Sychelles, and various smaller colonies in the South Pacific(Nauru, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Vanuatu) and the Caribbean became independent, or were ceded to Australia or New Zealand in the case of Pacific Territories.
Zimbabwe only technically became independent in 1980, and Hong Kong as late as 1997!
Britain STILL has various colonies; Gibraltar, Bermuda,Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Turks &Caicos Isles,Barbuda, Falklands, Chagos Islands, Tristan Da Cunha, Asuncion, St Helena, Channel Islands, Pitcairn Islands, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands, British Antarctic Territories etc.
Britain introduced an Industrial Base, Organised Economy, Advanced Agriculture, Modern Legal and Judicial Systems, Road and Rail Networks, Electricity, Schools, Hospitals, Civil Service etc in its colonies.
Also, nations such as USA, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Israel, Iraq etc would simply NOT EXIST without the British Empire having existed first!
So, colonialism had its good points, and importantly, Imperialism was a thing of ITS time, not OUR time, and we must always judge history in the context of the values, culture, politics, norms and attitudes of that time.
Are former colonies now run better than under the British?
Some are, but some arent, particularly in Africa sadly; places like Zimbabwe, Zambia, Uganda, Tanzania, Sierra Leone, Sudan etc have gone backwards in almost every way since the British left, so for that matter has Burma, Iraq, Papua New Guinea etc.
………………
Interesting question. There used to be a saying that “The sun never sets on the British Empire.” That was because they had interests around the entire world, and if you will remember your early American history, the British had a mandate to “Make the World British.” That was extremely distasteful to the Americans.
Why did they fail? It was too difficult to maintain such a large empire using the tactics they had employed. In 1945, presumably, the greatest treasure, or the Jewel in the Crown, India, was handed over to the Indians, and with it, they were able to take advantage of the the roads, railroads, postal system, police system, schools, hospitals, and democratization of their government. Was it a bad thing to colonize? Of course, but in retrospect, the countries that were colonized are the ones that have had an easier time obtaining a more democratic way of life. Not true in all cases they used their training well. Is the world a better place since colonization has stopped. Actually, it hasn’t, it has just stopped being done by Western Civilizations. If you look at Africa, there is lots of internal colonization, not a good thing, but still, it is going on.
The best answer to you question about why the British Empire collapsed so quickly, is that the rise of other super powers, over powered it, and they did not have the man power to continue to subujate the other countries.
There have been dozens of books written about this very thing. Check them out.
…………
The primary reason was economics. Following World War I and II (remember there were only 21 years between the end of WW1 and the start of WW2), the British economy was in shambles and they couldn’t afford to fight a series of colonial wars. Also following World War I and II, the British people were war weary. Britain lost a lot of men during the two world wars and many questioned whether the human cost was worth keeping the British Empire. BTW, a third reason, related to World War II, was the sucess of the Japanese against European powers. Before World War II, many Asian nationalists believed that the Europeans could not be beaten. After watching the Japanese army humiliate European armies, Asian nationalists became convinced they could beat the Europeans, including England, and Europeans, including the English, became less confident of their ability to hold their empires.
……………
the british nation has plundered many nations, divided many lands and has always ruled with an iron fist.
bullies never last forever and eventually when u keep kicking someone on the ground they will rise up and fight back.
the british government was never able to pacify the people of their colonies and therefore the colonies never accecpted to buy into the british way of life.
therefore when the brits were involved in two world wars they didnt have the force or resources to keep control in their colonies.
the 1916 rebellion in ireland wa sborn out of the fact that britain was at war and the irish leaders saw bitains difficulty as irelands gain.
the day that the union jack is buried forever will be a great ne
………..
Traditionally English settlers would take with them only such elements of English Law which would be appropriate to the new colony. The Mortmain Act, for example, being deemed inappropriate to the settlers of New South Wales, whilst the 1882 Bankruptcy Act was deemed to have universal application. Ecclesiatical Law was also applied to settled territories in the absence of any established church.
In the early years of colonial expansion the British Monarch held powers by Order on Council or by the Charter of Justice under the Great Seal to enact new laws to be applied to the local administration of the colonies, but in 1865 the Colonial Laws Validity Act would permit the colonial legislatures to establish courts of Judication in which to enact laws on local matters. The British Government, however, retained the power to invalidate such local laws and also to involve the colonies, when appropriate, in British Foreign policy (a priviso that was in fact never exercised).
By 1926 it had become clear that the 1865 Act had become repugnant to many of the dominions. At the Imperial conference of that year (reinforced by similar decisions at the 1930 conference) it was decided to put forward legislation to permit far greater independant powers to the colonial legislatures (defined as “autonomous communities within the British Empire equal in status and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations”). This would lead to the 1931 Statute of Westminster which gave Parliamentary sanction to the above definition, and accorded legislative independence to the Parliaments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, The Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland. The 1931 Statute establishing in law that no Act pertaining to the colonies could be passed after 1931 unless that Act had been consented to by the colony concerned.
Remarkably the Statute of Westminster did not bring about a Sauve-Qui-Peut of colonies demanding immediate independence from Great Britain. Many, like New Zealand (which took some 16 years to decide) would show a great deal of caution in accepting the responsibility of full Independence. This may well have been largely due to the financial consequences resulting out of taking on the responsibility for their own future. For whilst enjoying Dominion status the colony were able to enjoy a certain amount of financial backing from the parent nation, once that Colony obtained its independence, then naturally this support would cease and the new State would be on its own to raise whatever capital it could negotiate. In addition the full cost of State Administration would full entirely on its own legislature.
The British Government was, of course, fully aware of this difficulty. In 1929 the Colonial Development Act (1929) was passed by Parliament which established a Colonial Development Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. One million pounds a year was made available to further schemes likely to increase trade between the colonies and Britain, but the effects of this Aid were limited and by the late 1930’s it was becoming clear that substantial further help would be required. An outbreak of rioting in the West Indies would lead to the establishment of a commission under Lord Moyne whose enquiry would recommend substantantial help to enable the West Indian colonies to build up their economies and social services. This would become the first of a number of Colonial Development Acts. The first, in 1940, authorising expenditure of £5 million per year for the next ten years. In addition a further sum of £500, 000 a year was made available for Research. This Act also cancelled some £10 million of loans previously made to the colonies. In 1943 a Colonial Products Research Council was established to deal with research facilities under the Act.
Naturally, the Wartime situation would inhibit the extent that the authorised Aid could actually be applied, and it would not be until 1945, with the passing of the Second Colonial Development and Welfare Act, that the British Government’s policy could fully be applied. The 1945 Act improved on its predecessor by extending the Grant period until 1956, almost doubled the authorised rate of expenditure and removed the requirement for the colonies to refund any unspent allocation from the previous year back to the UK Treasury.
A series of subsequent Acts, culminating in the the 1959 Colonial Development and Welfare Act and the 1963 Commonwealth Development Act would ultimately see the total amount of such aid to the colonies in the post war period to total some £340 million, with the Grant period extended until 1966. Additional assistance was also available in the form of Exchequer Loans for approved development programmes (which relieved the Colonial Governments from having to raise loans on the international monetary markets) and, from 1965 the granting of Interest free loans in certain appropriate cases, (amounting to £125 million with a fixed ceiling of £390 million for total assistance). In addition the time limit for Colonial Developmemnt and Welfare Grants was again extended until 1970. Since then assistance to the remaining Colonies (now considerably deminished as countries gained their full independence) has been provided by the provisions of the Overseas Aid Act (1966)