Can anybody explain to me how British & France culture felt about colonialism post-WWII? Especially for France, I would have expected that "being invaded and exploited by a foreign nation" would suddenly take a completely different moral outlook, but no, they resist Algeria separating. Why?
Semi-relevant Wikipedia:
When Britain reached out to the US asking for help in the war, the US offered help contingent on Britain decolonizing post WW2, and that agreement was codified in the Atlantic charter. The decolonization of Britain (post war) also meant that US and other countries would possibly have access to markets to sell goods that were previously under British Empire-which was not accessible to them then[86][87] To bring about these changes, the establishment of UN following World War 2 codified sovereignty for nations, and encouraged free trade. The war also forced the British to come to an agreement with Indian leaders to grant them freedom if they helped with war efforts since India had one of largest armies.[88] Also, following WW2, it was untenable for British to raise capital on its own to keep its colonies. They needed to rely on America and did via the Marshall Plan to rebuild their country.
> Can anybody explain to me how British & France culture felt about colonialism post-WWII? Especially for France, I would have expected that "being invaded and exploited by a foreign nation" would suddenly take a completely different moral outlook, but no, they resist Algeria separating. Why?
It's completely different, you see, because Germany is a nation of militaristic Huns who are bent on nothing less than the destruction of civilization, while France is the bastion of the Enlightenment and bringing civilization to the uncivilized peoples. That sort of special pleading goes a long way, especially when the main proponents are trapped in an echo chamber and seriously believe that their colonizing missions are well-accepted by the native populations.
It's always different when YOU'RE the colonizer/invader bringing civilization.
The French tried harder than almost anybody else to maintain their colonial empire. The Vietnam war would have been several orders of magnitude less likely to have happened if France just granted French Indochina independence.
The independence of Algeria was also extremely traumatic for France (De Gaulle was almost assassinated by Pieds-Noirs (white french born in Africa)). It's a fascinating story that involves storied history that gets ingrained into your culture. Keep in mind, Algeria was a full department of France (but the nonwhites had less political power), so it'd be a lot like a state or province leaving in other countries. You might very well think it'd be disastrous socially and economically, not to mention absorbing the people who wanted to remain part of the country it's leaving (which is what happened, a lot of bitter french whites and natives headed to France, but never felt truly at home). It's best to just read up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War
The British wanted to keep their empire, but they were broke after the war. There were some futile attempts to keep what they had left (see the Suez crisis), but it rarely panned out. Most attempts at managed decolonization resulted in white minority-declared independence in places like Africa (See Rhodesia and South Africa).
There were several other attempts to maintain their colonies by more minor European powers that were invaded during the war as well, such as the Dutch (Indonesia), and Belgium (Congo).
And the US involvement in Vietnam independence was closely tied to the US needing France for a united NATO front against Russia (at least in the beginning). Without US support for keeping IndoChina, France was threatening to not be a part of NATO.
So when someone tells you "This was happened because of X", you ignore what they say as these conflicts are always complicated and have a long history.
I'm sorry there doesn't seem to be any English text about it but it was an amazing low tech psychological warfare maneuver. Worth reading if you have some french reading ability or friend.
Arguably the Suez Crisis was UK and France invading a sovereign state and trying to setup a new colony in 1956. Had they succeeded, I have no doubt they will attempt to setup new colonies all way into the '60s and '70s.
American help was dependent on decolonisation. Yet many of those smaller islands quietly became American air bases, fuelling ports and what have you. In some regions, such as Japan, you see a continuing US military presence that was a post war rebuilding, but also what is sometimes called "soft empire".
The French colonial subjects had a little extra in terms of rights. If I remember right, a citizen of a French colony had as much right to go to and live in France as a Frenchwoman born in Paris. It wouldn't therefore be that surprising to think they saw Algeria as part of France, to be resisted as much as the independence of Cherbourg.
The British experience was a little more separated, but there was a era of decolonialisation during the 50s and 60s. They not only relinquished the colonies but had a clear policy of local majority rule in place before independence. At the same time the citizens were resenting the waves of immigrants arriving to help in the NHS, post-war rebuilding, and driving buses and trains - leading to today's Windrush scandal. Yet some immigrants had been in the UK, without too much problem, for centuries.
There's a certain consistency to the inconsistencies. If you follow me. :)
> Can anybody explain to me how British & France culture felt about colonialism post-WWII? Especially for France [...] they resist Algeria separating. Why?
The First Indochina War is also relevant and an enlightening example of France's post-WWII colonialism. And it lead to the Vietnam War.
As for Britain, apparently at least some factions, such as Churchill and some conservatives, favored the continuing existence of the British Empire and its colonies. It's so odd, looking at it with modern eyes, that the people who fought against the expansionism of Nazi Germany themselves thought it was their right to keep an empire with colonies. It would seem the "free" world wasn't free for everyone.
I've had a number of friends from India tell me that the British colonization left them some valuable heritage, such as some on the institutions. Maybe it's not quite the same as Nazi occupation.
Nobody said it was the same as Nazi occupation, though British occupation of India was at times brutal, and involved much bloodshed.
What's curious is that some of the so-called leaders of the "free" world thought it was ok to keep colonies -- an "empire", in fact -- as late as the post-WWII world. Again, some tried to keep those colonies through VERY brutal methods, like the French; in turn, their experience in "counterinsurgency" (i.e. torture) while fighting guerrillas and independence movements was propagated in later conflicts, such as the various dictatorships in Latin America which were trained by the School of the Americas using French methods. And all of this coming from Western democracies.
How would that work? Algeria was located in another continent, and was acquired by force and much bloodshed in the 19th century. French as a language became prominent during and after colonization.
It's in another continent. You have to cross a sea to get to it from France, and in fact an armada was used to invade it. The natives were not culturally related to the French. It was taken by direct force at the whim of the ruling monarch. French culture and language was imposed after colonization. It is listed as a former French colony in mainstream references. Africa in particular was a target of colonialism by European powers.
It had the same status as present-day French Guiana (which is similar to Hawaii or Alaska in the US), the only difference is Algeria's indigenous population was opposed to it.
Semi-relevant Wikipedia:
When Britain reached out to the US asking for help in the war, the US offered help contingent on Britain decolonizing post WW2, and that agreement was codified in the Atlantic charter. The decolonization of Britain (post war) also meant that US and other countries would possibly have access to markets to sell goods that were previously under British Empire-which was not accessible to them then[86][87] To bring about these changes, the establishment of UN following World War 2 codified sovereignty for nations, and encouraged free trade. The war also forced the British to come to an agreement with Indian leaders to grant them freedom if they helped with war efforts since India had one of largest armies.[88] Also, following WW2, it was untenable for British to raise capital on its own to keep its colonies. They needed to rely on America and did via the Marshall Plan to rebuild their country.