Question:
If World War II never occurred, would European empires have been allowed to continue at full size to today?
2010-06-27 11:44:56 UTC
Since World War II was the main factor in the crumbling of European empires due to a complete lack of effort, infrastructure, army, or funding from Europe to the colonies? Since World War II also caused Britain, Netherlands, France, etc. to have less money due to spending to rebuild buildings, get food, provide housing, etc. If World War II just never occurred altogether, would Britain have enough money, combat, and effort to have the British Empire exist at full size to today? Would India still be under British rule well into 2010, as well as Rhodesia, Kenya, West Indies, Malaya, Singapore, etc.? Also the same for the Dutch Empire, French Empire, Belgian Empire, etc. Also if World War II never existed colonies who fought for the mother European country could not use an excuse to say they fought for the mother country and so deserved independence in return.
Four answers:
ammianus
2010-06-28 11:36:36 UTC
WW1 had crippled Europe economically, psychologically, and morally; although no one realized it at the time, European empires were doomed by WW1, for the following reasons:



Firstly, the massive cost of WW1,even for the winners, meant they didn't have the financial wherewithal to fund the defence of their colonies anymore, particularly as these actually became larger in number under the Mandate system.For example the British, although constructing massive fortifications facing out to sea in Singapore, couldn't afford construction and manning of the war fleet necessary to defend the Malayan peninsula from amphibious invasion, the main reason that the Japanese were able to attack the Malayan peninsula and capture Singapore.Trouble in Iraq was dealt with by individual planes flying bombing missions against any rebels they could find; pre WW1, a full scale military expedition would have been launched.



The psychological damage done to the victorious Allies by WW1 meant they were no longer interested in war, and therefore were not so keen on defence expenditure - overseas commitments were the first to be cut.Further, a combination of strong pacifist movements and the Great Depression in Europe further reduced the political will to pay for colonial defence.



Finally, morally, Europe had lost its self proclaimed - and widely accepted - cultural and moral superiority it had enjoyed before WW1.After all, if the best Europe could come up with was the 4 years of senseless slaughter that was the major feature of WW1, how could they be superior to other peoples and continents? this was an idea not lost on the natives of European colonies, who no longer saw their White European colonial masters as superior to them;as a result, strong nationalist and independence movements grew throughout European colonial possessions.



So,it was WW1 that sounded the death knell for European overseas empires; even without WW2, the Imperial countries would eventually have been forced to relinquish their empires due to a combination of financial and nationalist reasons.
2010-06-27 13:27:52 UTC
What is your thesis that WW2 was the main factor in the demise of Empires.



It was WW1 that was the fulcrum that ensured the independence of the colonies.



Basically it was India that started the break up of the Empires. There is debate as to whether it would have occurred sooner or later without WW2.

Ghandi agreed to suspend the move towards independence for the duration of the war. But it was finance that in the end decided its freedom from Britain. This was inevitable, once the movement for freedom got under way, there was no way Westminster would have fought to keep it.



If you have doubts on this score go back to the English Civil war, Parliament is responsible for financing wars. The one against the Nazis and Japan was forced upon us.



Well someone had to stick up for the little man. Lets assume WW2 didn't happen.



Even if the political feeling had gone against independence for a period of time by the mid Fifties at the latest India would have gained its freedom, the head of steam was already under way in the 20s.



Remember basically English politics is at heart pragmatic. Once it was costing more than 10,000 civil servants (yes note this India was run by 10,000 civil servants) and a few local militia, India was not worth hanging on to.

It was gained from the French to protect trade, always remember this.



Once India had its freedom from Westminster others would demanded theirs.

Whether this was a good thing (in Africa especially) is a debatable point. Would Westminster have hung on to other colonies longer (especially in Africa) yes some weren't ready to run themselves, but would England have given them their independence at some point. Yes it is our reason for being here. Our point was to trade, it is these left wing socialists who say we shouldn't be in Africa that do the most harm to the indigenous peoples. We went there to trade and put an infrastructure in place. If there is criticism it is we didn't educate enough.



Would other nations (France Portugal, Belgium, Spain, Holland) it is debatable. Holland would probably follow England's lead, for the rest you would have to ask them, I suspect not.



Portugal was forced out of Goa. If you visit India check out Bombay (that's Bombay, I got told off by the street stall holders for calling it the other name) then see what Goa is like.



You will see why only the British and Romans new how to run Empire.
2016-04-12 18:38:33 UTC
If the World Wars never happened, then there would be so few independent countries in the world that you could easily name them all. Remember that imperialism was still going on before the first war, and if the European empires never confronted each other in Europe, it would be similar to a Cold War in Africa, Asia, and eventually Latin America.
THX1138
2010-06-27 11:50:28 UTC
hmmmm.

there is no example of historical paralysis. if nothing changed, then nothing changed. what the heck kind of question is this?

but seriously, kittens would take over the world, and bengal tigers would proliferate, IF europe remained in a condition of stasis and my grandmother stopped clipping off the ends of her shoes to accomodate the accelerating growth of her nails. so yes, I mean no, and I'm pretty sure I'm right about this. So thanks!


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...