It is easy, or perhaps far more comforting, to look back at the histories of the First and Second World Wars and see that good triumphed over evil, that the righteous were able to overcome and smite the wicked, but the reality is rarely so black and white. Obviously, the Second World War was one fought largely to stop the fascist expansions of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, states that were committing many atrocities as they swept across Europe and Asia towards their goal of global conquest. In contrast, the First World War was not fought for ideology and humanity, but it was fought for land, as well as the human and natural resources that they contained. When the Germans, Ottomans and Austrians were finally overcome at the end of the war, they were stripped of their imperial lands; and though some lands were formed into a new states, such as Czechoslovakia, much was simply absorbed into the empires of the victorious French and British. I am in no way attempting to state that the actions of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 were comparable to those of Britain and France in the time that they held colonies in Africa and Asia; but one must admit that their conquests of these lands and their often brutal occupations of them as colonies paints a less than flattering picture. Frederick Cooper (History Professor at Yale University) stated that when the war finally ended in 1945, much of the remaining empires lay in shambles, due to the seizure of Asian colonies by the Japanese Empire, as well as the collapse or near collapse of the imperial seats of Britain and France. In the years following the war, Britain and France would try, but ultimately fail to reacquire their colonies abroad due to a lack of ability to field armies to retake the lands from native nationalist forces. (Cooper, p.199)
In the post-war years and with the creation of the United Nations, one could expect that we had entered a new era of independence, one of freedom and justice for all people, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant they were to the broader society. This was simply not the case however, as many former colonies of France and Britain, attempting to use the relative post-war weakness of the Europeans to their advantage, attempted to rise up and declare themselves an independent state. The European reactions to such declarations were brutal; even France, which had arguably the most generous and democratic colonial system in regard to their colonial subjects, fought tooth and nail against insurrectionist forces in their colonies of Algeria and Vietnam. Though treated relatively well in peacetime, many colonial subjects of such colonies were denied full citizenship in the country they were still subject to, denoting only the most civil of political and economic injustices they would endure. The worst injustices would be endured during their very wars for independence, where French forces in particular resorted to terrorizing the civilian population and torturing those suspected of collaborating with rebel forces. (Cooper, p.201-202) Eventually, such brutal tactics used by the French would weaken the legitimacy of their claims to colonial power and the legitimacy of colonial rule itself. It had been proven that European powers, such as Britain or France, no longer had the right nor the power to claim foreign lands as their colonies and subject them to sub-standard conditions as colonial subjects. The time of empires and European dominance on the world stage was coming to a close, and the era of the nation-state, sovereign and independent, had just in full swing.
Cooper, F. (2011). Reconstructing Empire in British and French Africa. Past & Present, 210(Supplement 6), 196-210. doi:10.1093/pastj/gtq047
I think you did a really good job with your blog. I think you made really valid points about the differences in both the World Wars and why they were fought. Colonization was such a big part of the world and most of the colonies were lost during or soon after the second World War. I think it was a really good point you made in your last sentence about the end of empires and European dominance, and the opening up of nation-sates.
I thought you brought up an interesting point about how the French colonists were treated better than other countries colonists during times of peace. Even though they could not be considered full citizens of France, they still had a better situation than other colonists when there was peace. The flip side of this situation is when the Algerians wanted their independence and France did not want to lose anymore of its colonies so that resulted in the torture of Algerians. Do you think that France losing Vietnam was the spark for the idea of Algerians becoming independent or were there other influences as well?
I like how you bring up the fact that France fought very hard against insurrectionist forces in their colonies, even with their more generous and democratic colonial system. France had failed to assimilate their colonial subjects into French culture. I think it is very naive to think that you could wipe an entire culture clean of their past and values.
You even see this policy of assimilation in France today. France is known for policies aimed at assimilating their immigrants into French culture. I admit that this issue is very arguable and contentious, but I will go ahead and say that an example of this deep desire to assimilate immigrants is the recent ban in 2004 on French Muslim girls (or people of any religion) wearing their headscarves at school and at work.
Is the focus on laïcité (secularism) in French politics a form of oppression? Or does it protect women from patriarchal oppression? I see a lot of connections between politics surrounding laïcité today and France’s assimilationist policy in their colonies. The French taught their colonial subjects that, by adopting French language and culture, they could eventually “become” French.
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/30/frances-problem-secularism-300718.html –> Here is an interesting (obviously one-sided) article that discusses assimilation in France.
The end of the second world war quickly brought an end to colonization. The exact reasoning why is still debated. Many argue that it is hard to justify colonization as ethical when persecuting other nations for violating human rights for occupying others. A la Germany. I think one topic that is not often discussed, is how does decolonization effect the countries at home or effect their moral. Clearly loosing the colonies had a finical toll on both England and France, but also both countries had to adapt to a new identity as sovereign nations with out an empire. For both countries this is a role they had not played in over four hundred years.
I think that while after World War II, we entered the era of “independence” as you put it, what really defines our independence? Is it the right to choose our own destiny as a nation? Or is it simply the right to life, and not become victims to atrocities such as those seen in WWII? Often, colonial powers justified their interference and subjugation of other peoples as “doing them a favor” so to say. We shouldn’t forget that while these colonies would eventually gain independence, Eastern European countries were forced under Soviet rule after the war. SO was this truly an era of independence to begin with?
Your narrative of colonialism ending is nice to hear, but not wholly accurate, one could argue. Britain arguably still controls the Falkland Islands as a colony, the U.S. hold territories such as Puerto Rico and Guam in unfavorable conditions, and other states hold other nations under their respective thumbs for economic gain. As Britain showed the world in 1982, colonial powers still hold enough power to control and maintain certain colonies. A more honest narrative, I think, would be that this was in the swing of the decolonization movement that continues to this day.